Selected speeches. Arranged and edited with introd. and explanatory notes by T.E. Kebbel

SELECTED SPEECHES

OF THE LATE RIGHT HOX. THE

EARL OF BEACONSFIELD

VOL. n.

LONDON : PRINTED BY

8POTTI8WOODK AND CO., NEW-STREET 8QDARH
AND PARLIAMENT 8TBEET

SELECTED SPEECHES

THE

HONOURABLE THE

ARRANGED AND EDITED

WITH INTRODUCTION AND EXPLANATORY NOTES

T. E. KEBBEL, M.A.

ith a orfrait

m

,; J'-l

VOLUMES - VOLUME II.

LONDON
LONGMANS, GEEEN, AND CO.

1882

All rights reserved

CONTENTS

OF

THE SECOND VOLUME.

PART I.
FOREIGN AFFAIRS.

OUR RELATIONS WITH FRANCE, FEB. 18, 1853

PROSECUTION OF WAR, MAY 24, 1855

VOTE OF CENSURE— DENMARK AND GERMANY, JULY 4, 1864 .'
SPEECH ON PROPOSING VOTE OF THANKS TO FORCES ENGAGED IN
THE ABYSSINIAN EXPEDITION, JULY 2, 1868 . . . •

BLACK SEA CONFERENCE, FEB. 24, 1871

BULGARIAN ATROCITIES, AUG. 11, 1876

CALLING OUT RESERVE FORCES, APRIL 8, 1878

BERLIN TREATY, JULY 18, 1878 . c .

REPLY TO DUKE OF ARGYLL, MAY 16, 1879 .

SPEECH ON ADDRESS, JAN. 7, 1881 • •

PAGE

3

41
81

128
133
151
161
179
203
219

PART II.
INDIAN AND COLONIAL SPEECHES.

ROYAL TITLES BILL, MARCH 9, 1876 . . . . .-•'. 231

AFGHAN WAR, DEC. 10, 1878 . . .' . •'. ;• . . 240

WAR IN SOUTH AFRICA, MARCH 26, 1879 ... . .252

EVACUATION OF CANDAHAR, MARCH 4, 1881 . ; • • • 201

CONTENTS OF THE SECOND VOLUME.

• Q P^RT III.
IRELAND.

PAGE

IEJSH ELECTION PETITIONS (MAIDEN SPEECH), DEC. 7, 1837 . . 275
ARMS BILL, IRELAND, AUG. 9, 1843 . . . 282

AMENDMENT TO ADDRESS, FEB. 1, 1849 ... 294

THIRD READING IRISH CHURCH BILL, MAY 31, 1869 . 297

SPEECH ON ADDRESS, FEB. 8, 1870 . . - . 316

SECOND READING IRISH LAND BILL, MARCH 11, 1870 . 339

WESTMEATH COMMTTTEE, FEB. 27, 1871 . . 363

IRISH UNIVERSITY EDUCATION BILL, MARCH 11, 1873 . 359

COMPENSATION FOR DISTURBANCE BILL, AUG. 3, 1880 394

PROTECTION TO 'PERSON AND PROPERTY BILL, MARCH 1, 1881 . 408

}
PART IV.

PARTY SPEECHES AND GENERAL POLITICS.

THE LABOURS OF THE SESSION, AUG. 30, 1848 . • 415
BANQUET AT SLOUGH TO MEMBERS FOR BUCKINGHAM, MAY 26, 1858 457

SPEECH AT EDINBURGH ON REFORM BILL, OCT. 29, 1867 . 470

CONSERVATIVE PRINCIPLES (MANCHESTER), APRIL 3, 1872 . 490

CONSERVATIVE AND LIBERAL PRINCIPLES (CRYSTAL PALACE)

JUNE 24, 1872 ,OQ

' • • • • •>!_•>

EXPLANATION IN HOUSE OF COMMONS, MARCH 20, 1873 . 536

PAET V.
THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND.

THE PRESENT POSITION OF THE CHURCH, Nov. 14, 1861 555

THE FUTURE POSITION OF THE CHURCH, OCT. 30, 1862 . 667

ON ACT OF UNIFORMITY, JUNE 9, 1863 f . 681

ON CHURCH POLICY, Nov. 25, 1864 . . ..f 696

CONTENTS OF THE SECOND VOLUME. vii

PAKT VI.
MISCELLANEO US.

PAGE

LITERARY MIND 618

BOTAi LITERARY FlTND 630

BROMPTON HOSPITAL 633

DEATH OF PRINCEALBERT . 644

SPEECHES

OF THE

EARL OF BEACONSFIELD,

VOL, II -PART I.
FOREIGN AFFAIRS.

OUR RELATIONS WITH FRANCE . . . FEB. 18, 1853..

PROSECUTION OF WAR MAY 24, 1855.

VOTE OF CENSURE, 1864 JULY 4, 1864.

SPEECH ON PROPOSING VOTE OF THANKS
TO FORCES ENGAGED IN THE ABYS-
SINIAN EXPEDITION JULY 2, 1868..

BLACK SEA CONFERENCE .... FEB. 24, 1871.

BULGARIAN ATROCITIES AUG. 11, 1876.

CALLING OUT RESERVE FORCES . . . APRIL 8, 1878.

BERLIN TREATY JULY 18, 1878.

REPLY TO DUKE OF ARGYLL .... MAY 16, 1879.

SPEECH ON ADDRESS .... JAN. 7, 188L

VOL. II.

Cutario

OUE RELATIONS WITH FRANCE, Feb. 18, 1853.1

[The object of this speech was the same as many others delivered
by Mr. Disraeli about the same date, to show, namely, that the coali-
tion ministry of Lord Aberdeen was bound together by no common
principles either of foreign or domestic policy. On the present occasion
he quoted speeches of Lord John Russell, Sir James Graham, and Sir
Charles Wood on the Government lately established in France by
Louis Napoleon, and asked which of the three expressed the opinion
of the cabinet. The most interesting and amusing part of the present
speech begins at page 15.]

8 IK, I wish before the House goes into Committee of Supply,
to make some inquiries of Her Majesty's Government with
respect to our relations with France. It is the most important
subject of modern politics. We have now, Sir, for nearly forty
years, had the blessing of peace between Great Britain and
France. During that interval the social relations of the two
countries have become various and multiplied. Our commer-
cial transactions during that interval have gradually, progres-
sively, and considerably increased ; and at the right opportunity,
and under favourable circumstances, no doubt, with enlightened
legislation, those commercial transactions are susceptible of
considerable, and perhaps indefinite, development.

There are two countries which may be esteemed nrst-rclass
Powers, between whom all questions of high policy are so far
identical. It is somewhat strange when we have so many
guarantees for a permanent good understanding between the two
countries, so many securities for that peace which we desire —
when the past, by the long interval of tranquillity that has
occurred, proves that practically there are sources of security

1 This speech is reprinted from Hansard's Debates by permission of Mr.
Hansard.

B 2

4 SPEECHES OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD.

which are valid and sufficient — it is extremely strange and
startling that, under such circumstances, an idea should seem
to .have entered into almost every man's brain, and an expres-
sion into every man's mouth, that we are on the eve of a
rupture with that country.

I don't think it unreasonable, therefore, that on going into
Committee of Supply, when we are about to vote large sums to
sustain the armaments of the country, I should make some
inquiries of Her Majesty's Government on a subject of such
absorbing interest, and offer a few remarks to the House with
respect to it before they go into Committee. All must feel that
on such a topic it is of the highest importance that no false
opinion should take possession of the public mind, because in a
free country, opinion is one of the securities of peace, as it is also
sometimes one of the causes of war ; and it is by discussion,
which is the life and soul of a society like ours, that we arrive
at the truth on subjects which often to the danger and peril
of the community become perplexed and obscure.

I know, Sir, there are persons in both countries — persons
born and bred probably during the last great struggle — who
are of opinion that there is a natural hostility between the
French and the English nations. They are persons who may
probably be placed in the same list with those who think, or
used to think, that five per cent, is the natural rate of interest.
But at the same time they are persons influenced in many
instances by very sincere and patriotic feelings, and their
opinions, though they may be inveterate prejudices, are not to
be despised at a conjuncture like the present. I know, Sir,
that to persons influenced by such a conviction, it is in vain to
appeal by any. of those economical considerations which are
often mentioned in the present day. I know that it is in vain
to impress on them that, in an age favourable to industry,
ancient and civilised communities are diverted from thoughts
of war. I know that it is in vain to appeal to the higher im-
pulse of that philanthropy which many of us believe in such
communities, in societies under such conditions of great anti-
quity and advanced civilisation, to be mitigating the hearts of
nations. But, Sir, I think it right to appeal to stern facts,

OUE HELATIONS WITH FRANCE, FEBRUARY 1853. 5

which cannot be disputed — to the past conduct of men, which,
according to the theories of these individuals, is the best test
of what their future behaviour will be ; and I must say that I
do not see that the history of the past justifies the too prevalent
opinion, that between England and France there is a natural
rivalry and hostility. I know very well, Sir, that if you go
back to ancient history — or rather to the ancient history of the
two countries — that you may appeal to Cressy and Poictiers,
and to Agincourt, and believe there has always been a struggle
between the two countries, and that that struggle has always
redounded to the glory of England.

But it should be remembered these were not so much wars
between France and England as between the King of France
and the King of England as a French prince — that the latter
was fighting for his provinces of Picardy or Aquitaine — and
that, in fact, it was not a struggle between the two nations. I
take it for granted that, in considering this point, our history
need not go back to a more distant period than to that happy
hour when the keys of Calais were fortunately delivered over
for ever to the care of a French monarch ; and, when we take
that view, which is the real point of our modern history, as one
that should guide us on this subject, we shall observe that the
most sagacious sovereigns and the most eminent statesmen of
England, almost without exception, have held that the French
alliance, or a cordial understanding with the French nation,
should be the corner-stone of our diplomatic system, and the
keynote of our foreign policy.

No one can deny that both Queen Elizabeth and the Lord
Protector looked to that alliance as the basis of their foreign
connections. No one can deny that there was one subject on
which even the brilliant Bolingbroke and the sagacious Wai-
pole agreed — and that was the great importance of cultivating
an alliance or good understanding with France.1 At a later
date the most eminent of the statesmen of this country, Mr.
Pitt, formed his system on this principle, and entered public
life to establish a policy which, both for political considerations

1 On this head see some interesting remarks by Professor Ranke, History
of England, vol. v. p. 393.

6 SPEECHES OF THE EAEL OF BEACONSFIELD.

and commercial objects, mainly depended on an alliance and
good understanding with the French nation. And, therefore,.
Sir, it is not true that there has been at all times, or at most
times, a want of sympathy in England with the French people j
but, on the contrary, the converse is the truth ; and the alliance
and good understanding that has prevailed between us have, in
my opinion, been a source of great advantage to both countries,
and has advanced the civilisation of Europe. Even what has
occurred in our time proves, I think, the truth that the natural
tendency of the influences that regulate both countries is to
peace ; because the fact that, after such extraordinary events
as the European revolutions at the end of the last and the
beginning of this century, the great struggle that occurred, and
the great characters that figured in it — the fact that all should
terminate in a peace of so permanent a character as that which
has prevailed proves the tendency of all those causes which in-
fluence the conduct of both nations, and which lead to peace,
from a conviction of its advantage to both countries. I will
not, therefore, dwell further upon this point, except to express
my protest against the dogma which, I am sorry to see, has
been revived of late — not merely in England, although it is too
prevalent in this country — that there is a feeling of natural
hostility between the nations of Great Britain and France.

Sir, there are undoubtedly more novel and more important
causes to which may be imputed the present unfortunate
opinion that is prevalent on the subject of our relations with
France, and the first, and the most important, unquestionably,,
may be found in the increase of the armaments of this country.
There are many who say, whatever may be the assertions of
statesmen, whatever may be the public declaration of persons in
authority, whatever may be the judgment formed by sensible and
unimpassioned men of the circumstances of the hour, no one can
deny the stern conclusion that the Government of this country
feels the responsibility devolving upon it of increasing its arma-
ments ; and with what object can it be increasing its armaments
unless it is from a fear of some imminent and impending danger
from a foreign foe, and, if from a foreign foe, of course the
nearest and the most warlike of those that can be our enemies ?

OUR RELATIONS WITH FRANCE, FEBRUARY 1853. 7

Now, Sir, there is a great deal very plausible on the face of
this position ; nevertheless, the real truth is, that there is not
in the circumstance of those armaments the slightest founda-
tion for the belief that they have been occasioned by recent
transactions in France, or by the appearance of any particular
characters who have taken a leading part in the transactions of
that country. The origin of the increase of our armaments for
the defence of this country is of a date much more remote than
the incidents which are appealed to as the cause of those in-
creased armaments. The origin of completing and increasing
the defence of this country finds itself in those great changes
which have occurred in most of the affairs of life, which have
principally been occasioned by the application of science to the
business of life, and which application of science has not,
among many circumstances and subjects, spared the art of war.
Those who from their position were responsible for the defence
of this country, who from their character and their talents were
best calculated to observe the great changes that in this respect
were occurring, long and many years ago called the attention
of the executive Grovernment of this country to that important
subject. But we all know, especially in free and popular com-
munities, that the few are sensible of the necessity of change
before the multitude are convinced of that necessity, and that
it is extremely difficult to bring the great body of a community
to agree to a change, of the necessity of which they are not
convinced. And the Grovernment of this country many years
ago attempted to adapt the position of the country, with respect
to its means of defence, more to the present resources for that
object which now prevail ; but they found, of course, extreme
difficulty in obtaining the assistance of the House of Commons
for this object, when increased expenditure was a necessary con-
dition of the change ; and therefore for a long time the efforts
were few and feeble ; although the convictions of the cabinet
of the day were deep and earnest upon the subject.

Well, Sir, there then happened, some ten years ago, during
the Government of Sir E. Peel, a very unexpected incident,
that startled even the two nations themselves at the possibility
of a war occurring between the two countries. The cause was

8 SPEECHES OF THE EAKL OF BEACONSFIELD.

almost a contemptible cause when we think of the stake at
issue ; but there is no doubt, without now inquiring into the
peculiar circumstances which brought the crisis to such a fine
position, that for a short time the possibility of war between
England and France was not entirely out of question. Well,
Sir, the Government of that day — ten years ago — took advan-
tage, of course, of the public mind being somewhat startled and
alarmed upon the subject, and endeavoured, even when the
immediate danger had passed, to lead the public mind to the
consideration of the important question which never slept in
the councils of the cabinet ; and there were some efforts, and
not contemptible efforts, by the Government of Sir Kobert
Peel at least, to commence a new system with regard to the
public defences of the country. The people of this country
learnt for the first time that a great revolution had occurred in
the art of war, that that revolution had deprived them of their
ancient and, as it were, natural sources of defence, and they be-
gan generally to entertain the idea that they must adopt other
means for their defence. So far the question advanced ; but,
as the fulfilment of what was necessary was, of course, attended
with large and increased expenditure, and as there was a natural
objection always to increasing our expenditure for the sake of
armaments, in the House of Commons, the question, though it
became, as far as the country was concerned, from that time
a question that never entirely slept, yet advanced but slowly.
There was controversy still whether the country was sufficiently
defended or not, whether the ancient means were so completely
superseded as they were represented to be : there was a lingering
superstition in reference to « the wooden walls of old England.'

Suddenly we had a series of revolutions on the Continent,
a period of great alarm and of great disturbance. The people
of this country were at last convinced that the dream of per-
petual tranquillity and of continual improvement might be
closed. That was a time when again an opportunity was offered
to the Government of the day to lead popular opinion in the
direction which it wished, so far as the defence of the country
was concerned. The words of one of the greatest of our men
were then prevalent round every hearth, and public opinion

OUE EELATIONS WITH FEANCE, FEBRUAEY 1853. 9

^at last assumed the form of an earnest desire to complete the
defences of the country. I have no doubt, Sir, that whatever
Government existed, they would loyally and completely have
fulfilled that which was necessary to be done. It fell to the lot
of the late Government to meet the requirements in this respect
of England. I claim no merit for the late Government more
than that to which they are fairly entitled in having earnestly
endeavoured in this respect to do their duty. When they
acceded to office the question of the national defences was ripe.
No doubt if the Government of the noble lord (Lord John
Eussell) had continued in office, they would have done all that
was required ; it fell to us, however, to fulfil that duty, and
briefly I would place before the House what we did in that
respect. During the time that we were responsible for the
administration of affairs with regard to the national defences,
we established a Militia upon a popular principle — a principle
which at the time was much derided, but which, notwithstanding
the opposition that we received, we adhered to, and which
succeeded in producing a body that commands, so far as a new
force of that character can, the confidence, and, I may say, the
respect of the country. Sir, we secondly placed the artillery
of the country — that important arm — in an efficient state.
Thirdly, we introduced measures, or we prepared arrangements,
which would have completely, and will completely, fortify the
arsenals of the country, and some important posts upon the
coast. Fourthly, we increased our navy by a proposition which,
when carried into effect, will add to it 5,000 sailors and 1,500
marines ; and, fifthly, we made arrangements which I have no
doubt will be well completed by our successors, which would
have established, or rather will establish, the national garrison
in the form of a Channel fleet, an efficient Channel fleet of
fifteen or sixteen sail of the line, with an adequate number
of frigates and smaller vessels, and which, when these plans
are completed — and I trust they will be speedily completed —
will allow a Chanmel fleet of that force to rendezvous at a very
short notice from three or four ports. Into that fleet will be
introduced all those modern improvements of scientific machi-
nery which now are available.

10 SPEECHES OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD.

These, Sir, were the plans which we thought it our duty
to submit to the approbation of Parliament, and which received
the approbation of Parliament — plans which, in our opinion,
when completed, will fulfil all that is necessary for the defence
of the country.

I was very glad to hear from the noble lord the Secretary
of State, on the first night of our meeting, that Her Majesty's
ministers do not propose any increase of the army. That was a
subject which we felt it our duty well to consider, and it certainly
was our opinion that no such increase was necessary. I have
noticed these points in some detail, because it must be remem-
bered that one of the principal grounds for believing that the
friendly relations between France and England are about to be
broken is the increase of the armaments of this country.
Myself, however humbly, in a certain degree responsible for
that increase, I wish to take this opportunity of pointing out
the fallacy of that conclusion. Whoever might sit upon the-
throne of France, whether it be a Bourbon or a Bonaparte,
whatever might have been the form of government, however
disturbed or however tranquil the state of Europe, those who
were responsible for the administration of affairs in this country
—I care not from what party or from what section they might
be selected — would sooner or later have felt it their duty to
place the country in a state of defence ; that duty arising from
the great change which has taken place in the art of war, and
the means by which offensive or defensive operations are now
conducted. In the circumstance, therefore, that England has
increased its armament for self-defence I find no reason for a
moment to think that there is any authority for the too pre-
valent belief to which I have alluded.

Sir, there is one other cause, also of a novel character, which
has been alleged — which is daily alleged — for the belief in this
impending rupture, and which no doubt is exceedingly prevalent
and influential, and that is the troubled state of France during
latter years — troubles which have terminated in what I think
is fallaciously styled a military dynasty. Now, there can be no
doubt that the founder of the dynasty that now reigns in France
was one of the greatest conquerors, not only of modern but of

OUE RELATIONS WITH FRANCE, FEBRUARY 1853. II

all ages ; but it does not follow — and history, indeed, contra-
dicts the position — that the descendants of a conqueror are
necessarily his rivals. Generally speaking, those who follow a
conqueror are inclined to peaceable pursuits ; and when we find
that the present Emperor of the French, who in a certain sense
must be said to owe his throne to his connection with a great
conqueror, is not even by profession a military man, we find a
circumstance which further enforces the truth of the observation
I have made.

But then it is said that there is in France a military
Government, and that that country is at this moment regulated
by the army. But there is a great error also, I apprehend, if
history is to guide us, in assuming that because a country is
governed by an army that army must be extremely anxious to
conquer other countries. When armies are anxious for conquest
it is because their position at home is uneasy, because their
authority is not recognised, and because their power is not
felt. It is the army returning from conquest that attempts to
obtain supreme power in the State ; but if an army does possess
supreme power, you very rarely find that restless desire for
foreign aggression which is supposed to be the inevitable cha-
racteristic of a military force. Now, there is one remarkable
characteristic of the present military Government in France,
that that Government has not been occasioned by the ambition
of the army, but by the solicitation of classes of civilians, of
large bodies of the industrial population who, frightened,
whether rightly or wrongly, by a state of disturbances and, as
they supposed, of menacing anarchy, turned to the only dis-
ciplined body at command which they thought could secure
order. I am led, therefore, to the belief that in the circum-
stance that there is a dynasty founded by a conqueror, but
which is not a warlike dynasty, and that France is governed by
the army, not in consequence of the military ambition of the
troops, but in consequence of the disquietude of the citizens,,
there is no reason for that great anxiety which is now prevalent.

I know, Sir, there is another cause, notwithstanding, which
may occasion extreme embarrassment and dispute. Although
I think I have shown to the House — if that were, indeed, neces-

12 SPEECHES OF THE EAEL OF BEACONSFIELD.

sary — that the increase of our armaments has not been occa-
sioned by anything but the inevitable necessity of placing this
country in a state of safety and defence, and not by any changes
in foreign countries ; and although I have shown the House
some cause to believe that the state of affairs in France does not
necessarily, as some suppose, lead to military aggression ; yet,
Sir, I admit tb/at there are reasons at this moment which should
make men uneasy, and that there are causes of misconception
between the two nations which cannot be watched too narrowly,
and which, if neglected, may lead to disastrous consequences :
and I proceed now to advert to them. There is no doubt that
there is a considerable prejudice in this country against the
present ruler of France — I say it without reserve — for two
reasons. It is understood that in acceding to power he has ter-
minated what we esteem a Parliamentary Constitution, and that
he has abrogated the liberty of the Press. I wish to put the
case — I think it best to put the case — as fairly as I can before
the House, as the object of these observations is to put an end
to what I think — to what I hope — is a very mistaken feeling, and
to elicit from Her Majesty's Government explanations which I
trust will substantiate that belief on my side.

I have no doubt — we know — there is a prejudice against
the present ruler of France on these two grounds. It is un-
necessary for me to say that it is not probable I shall ever say
or do anything which would tend to depreciate the influence or
to diminish the power of Parliament or the Press. My greatest
honour is to be a member of this House, in which all my
thoughts and feelings are concentred ; and as for the Press, I
am myself a « gentleman of the Press,' and I bear no other
scutcheon. I know well the circumstances under which we
have obtained in this country the blessing of a free Press. It
is only a century and a half ago since we got rid of the censor-
ship ; and when we had got rid of the censorship we had a law
of libel which, for nearly a century, rendered that freedom of
the Press a most perilous privilege. Until Mr. Fox's great
Act upon the law of libel, no public writer could have been said
to be safe in this country. I mention that to remind the House
how very recent is the date of our real enjoyment of the Press

OUR RELATIONS WITH FRANCE, FEBRUARY 1853. 13

in this country, because we are mainly indebted to Mr. Fox for
that great privilege ; and the House will recollect that during
the interval — not a very long interval, little more than half a
century — that liberty of the Press has been often modified,
often interfered with by British ministers ; and that modifica-
tion and that interference have always been sanctioned by
British Parliaments. I hope we live in happier times than
those which preceded us in that respect. I hope we have
arrived at a conclusion in this country that if the Press is free,
it should enjoy a complete freedom ; that the best protection
against the excesses of the Press is the spirit of discussion,
which is the principle upon which our society at present de-
pends ; and I think that all parties in this country have come
to the conclusion that the liberty of the Press is the most
valuable of our public privileges, because, in fact, it secures
and guarantees the enjoyment of all the rest ; but, at the same
time, it is always advisable, when we make observations on the
conduct of foreign nations, that we should be perfectly satis-
fied that the circumstances in those countries to which we are
applying the opinions prevalent in our own are identical with
the circumstances in which we ourselves are placed.

Now, Sir, with all my love of the liberty of the Press, with
all my confidence that we have arrived at a state of society in
England which will prevent any minister at any time ever
again attempting to interfere with that liberty of the Press, I
am still conscious that we enjoy it in this country on certain
conditions which do not, in my opinion, prevail in other
countries: namely, of a long established order, a habit of
freedom of discussion, and, above all, an absence of all those
circumstances and of all those causes, many of which are dis-
turbing society in other countries.

Now, I will take a case as an example. Suppose that in
England at this moment we had the greatest of all political
evils — let us suppose that, instead of our happy settlement, we
had a disputed succession. Let us suppose that we had a
young Charles Stuart, for example, at this moment at Breda,
or a young Oliver Cromwell at Bordeaux, publishing their
manifestoes, and sending their missives to powerful parties of

14 SPEECHES OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD.

their adherents in this country. We may even suppose other
contingencies. Let us suppose that we had had, in the course
of a few years, great revolutions in this country — that the form
of our government had been changed — that our free and famous
monarchy had been subverted, and that a centralised republic
had been established by an energetic minority — that that
minority had been insupportable, and that the army had been
•called in by the people generally to guard them from the
excesses which they had experienced. Do you think that,
under any of these circumstances, you would be quite sure of
enjoying the same liberty of the Press which you enjoy at this
moment ? Do you think that in the midst of revolutions, with
a disputed succession, secret societies, and military rule, you
would be quite certain of having your newspaper at your
breakfast-table every morning ?

Sir, these are considerations which ought to guide us when
we are giving an opinion upon the conduct of rulers of other
nations. There is no doubt the circumstance that the present
ruler of France has stopped that liberty of the Press which we
so much prize has occasioned great odium against him in this
country, and has arrayed the feelings of the powerful Press
of England against the French Government. I myself speak
on this subject with no other feelings towards the Emperor of
the French than that feeling of respect which we ought all to
entertain for any sovereign whom Her gracious Majesty has
recognised and admitted into the fraternity of monarchs. 1
am not ashamed or afraid to say that I, for one, deplore what
has occurred and sympathise with the fallen.

Some years ago I had occasion frequently to visit France.
I found that country then under the mild sway of a constitu-
tional monarch ; of a prince who, from temper, as well as from
policy, was humane and beneficent. I know, Sir, that at that
time the Press was free. I know that at that time the Parlia-
ment of France was in existence, and distinguished by its
•eloquence and a dialectic power that probably even this, our
own House of Commons, has never surpassed. I know that
under these circumstance France arrived at a height of material
prosperity which it had never before reached. I know, also,

!. OUR RELATIONS WITH FEANCE, FEBRUARY 1853. 15

that after a reign of unbroken prosperity of long duration,
when he was aged, when he was in sorrow, and when he was
suffering under overwhelming indisposition, this same prince
was rudely expelled from his capital, and was denounced as
a poltroon by all the journals of England because he did not
command his troops to fire upon his people. Well, Sir, other
powers and other princes have since occupied his seat, who
have asserted their .authority in a very different way, and
are denounced by the same organs as tyrants because they did
order the troops to fire upon the people.

I said, Sir, that I deplore the past and sympathise with the
fallen. I think every man has a right to have his feelings
upon these subjects ; but what is the moral I presume to draw
from these circumstances ? It is this : that it is extremely
difficult to form an opinion upon French politics ; and that so
long as the French people are exact in their commercial
transactions, and friendly in their political relations, it is just
as well that we should not interfere with their management
of their domestic concerns. (Loud cheers.) I am glad to find
the House is of the opinion which I have ventured to express
upon this important subject. I do not say that it is not cer-
tainly the privilege of the English Press, or of any foreign
Press, to make any observations they may please upon the
conduct of foreign rulers, and upon the conduct of foreign
nations. It is an affair of discretion ; it is an affair of public
wisdom. Our Constitution has entrusted the writers in public
journals with the privilege of expressing their opinions ; they
have a very responsible position ; they must consider what is the
tendency, and what may be the consequences, of their acts ; they
have a right, however, to act, and no British minister and no
foreign potentate can question the power which they exercise.

Well, Sir, what was the feeling of the Government of the
noble lord opposite (Lord John Eussell) upon the subject to
which I am alluding ? It is important to know what was the
feeling, and what were the opinions of the noble lord when he
himself was at the head of the Grovernment. It is a pleasure
to turn to ' Hansard,' not to twit and taunt an honourable
gentleman with some quotation which may impugn his consis-

16 SPEECHES OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD.

tency, btit to refer to a statement of views becoming a person-
filling the noble lord's exalted position, and expressed with all
that propriety and terseness of language which distinguish
him.

This was the declaration of the noble lord in 1852, about
a year ago, almost immediately before he quitted office. These
expressions were delivered in another Parliament ; there are
many gentlemen present who did not listen to them ; they are
peculiarly apposite to the present moment. An acquaintance
with the opinions of a great minister at such a period must be
interesting to all, and therefore I shall make no excuse for
bringing before the House the views which the noble lord then
professed, and which I most sincerely believe he now entertains.

'This, however,' said the noble lord, on February 3, 1852,
'I am bound to say, that the President of France, with the
large means of information which he possesses, has no doubt
taken that course from a consideration of the state of the
country, and that the course which he has taken is that best
fitted to secure the welfare of the country over which he rules.
Let me restate what I have said on this subject.'

The House will observe that the noble lord spoke with
perfect calmness. It was not a speech in reply. It was a
speech delivered on the first night of the session. It was a
statement well matured and voluntarily made ; and, that he
may not be mistaken, the noble lord begs permission of the
House to give a summary of his views, and to restate them.
1 Let me restate,' said the noble lord, ' what I have said upon
this subject.

' I stated I could not give my approbation to the conduct
of the President ; but I have no reason to doubt, and everything
I have heard confirms that opinion, that in the opinion of the
President of France the three things which I have mentioned —
namely, putting an end to the French Constitution, preventing
the elections of 1852, and the abolition of the Parliamentary
Constitution — were all measures conducive, and perhaps essen-
tial, to the welfare of France. But I have something to state
further, because I confess I have seen with very great regret
the language which has been used by some portion of the Press

OUE RELATIONS WITH FRANCE, FEBRUARY 1853. 17

of this country with respect to the President of France and
the affairs of that country. I remember something as a boy,
and I have read more, of that which occurred during the peace
of Amiens, which rendered that peace of so short a duration, and
which involved these two great nations in the most bloody
hostilities which ever mangled the face of Europe. I believe
that temperate discussion, temperate negotiation between the
two countries, might have averted the calamity of war with
England, but that the language of the Press at that time was
such as greatly to embitter all negotiation, and to prevent the
continuance of that peace. Sir, I should deeply regret if the
Press of this country at the present time were to take a similar
course.'

I preferred, instead of giving my own representations of
what the noble lord said, appealing to his own terse and per-
spicuous language. Sounder sentiments, more clearly ex-
pressed, I have never listened to ; and I beg the House to
understand why I am pressing this important declaration upon
their attention at this moment ; it is, because this is the speech
of the noble lord when he was at the head of a Government, and
I am anxious to ascertain to-night whether his opinions since he
has taken a distinguished, but subordinate, part in a Govern-
ment headed by another, may be modified, and whether we may
count upon a unanimous similarity of opinion on the part of
his colleagues.

There can be no doubt, upon the subject of our relations
with France, at the beginning of 1852 there was a perfect
union of opinion between the noble lord and his then colleagues,
because in the other House the country was favoured on the
same night with a declaration of opinion on this important
subject, made by another person, who was for a long time a
member of this House and of Her Majesty's Government, but
who no longer occupies either of those positions — a noble lord
who, whatever may be the difference of our political opinions,
for his great abilities, his great capacity for public labour, and
his unimpeachable integrity, will always in this House be
mentioned and remembered with honour — I mean my Lord
Grey. I will not apologise to the House for reading an extract

VOL. n. C

18 SPEECHES OF THE EAKL OF BEACONSFIELD.

— it is the last I shall read — from the speech of Lord Grey,
because I am sure that on this important occasion, when it is
of the utmost advantage that accurate ideas upon this subject
should prevail, the House will be glad to learn what Lord Grey,
who cannot be doubted as a lover of public liberty, thought of
the situation of France a year ago, for it may be a very efficient
guide to us as to his opinions of the state of France at this
moment. Lord Grey said —

* I have the pleasure of being able to express my unqualified
concurrence in, I believe, every word which the noble earl who
preceded me (the Earl of Derby) uttered. I entirely agree
with him as to its being the duty of this country, as a country
and a nation, and the duty of each individual in his individual
capacity, to abstain from any interference in the internal
politics of that great and powerful nation which lies so near to
us. I, like the noble lord, observe with the deepest concern,
and, I may say, with the indignation which the noble earl has
expressed, the tone which has been taken by a large portion of
the newspaper press of this country. I think that the denun-
ciation of the person at the head of the Government of France,
coupled with those more than exaggerated — I will say, untrue
— representations of the defenceless condition of this country,
do not only savour of imprudence, but of something worse than
imprudence ; and I rejoice that the noble earl, in the position
which he occupies, has come forward to assert, in the emphatic
manner in which it has been done, his utter repudiation of
language such as I have described. And I do trust that when,
with the full assurance that I have the concurrence of my
colleagues, I join in that repudiation, and when I am con-
vinced every one of your lordships will echo the same sentiment,
I do believe and hope that the mischief, the incalculable evil,
which might otherwise have resulted from language thus held
by a great part of the newspaper press of this country, will to a
great extent be neutralised, and that it will be understood in
foreign countries that, however those newspapers may express
the opinions or the feelings of those who write in them, they do
not express the opinions or the feelings of any great and power-
ful party in this country, or in the Houses of Parliament.'

OUE RELATIONS WITH FRANCE, FEBRUARY 1853. 19

Now, the House will observe that Lord Grey, on that
occasion, entirely coincided in opinion with the noble lord who
was then at the head of Her Majesty's Government in this
House. I think it will be observed that on that occasion Lord
Grey answered for the complete agreement of his colleagues as
to the evil, not of public characters, but of anonymous writers
in the Press, denouncing the ruler of France. We are clear,
therefore, that on that occasion the whole of the colleagues
of the noble lord in his Government were of opinion that,
however lawful and legitimate the criticisms and strictures
of the Press of England might be, these denunciations of the
Emperor of the French were seriously to be deprecated ; and
that there was a most anxious desire and determination on the
part of the noble lord and his Government to maintain between
this country and France the most friendly relations. Well,
Sir, that was the state of affairs between the two countries a
year ago. Perhaps I may be permitted to say that during the
period that we occupied office nothing took place that at all
impaired that cordial understanding between the two countries
which I may say we inherited from our predecessors.

I know well, Sir, that there are some gentlemen — some in
this House — who, though they may highly esteem a friendly
understanding between this country and other Powers, are apt
to speak in a tone of great disparagement of the duties and the
influence of diplomacy, and do not attribute to such intimate
connection any great, or permanent, or advantageous influence
on the general course of human events. I can only say, Sir —
I feel it my duty to say — that during the period, however brief,
in which we occupied a responsible position as regards the
administration of this country, we found a cordial understand-
ing with France to be of great advantage to the welfare of the
world ; that on several occasions we found that cordial under-
standing coming to our aid to maintain peace, to advance civilisa-
tion, and to promote the general welfare of mankind. I do
not wish to take refuge in vague declamation ; but of course
upon such a subject I am bound to exercise considerable reserve.
I shall not now pretend to give to the House a catalogue of all
the instances in which we found the advantage of that cordial

c 2

20 SPEECHES OF THE EAEL OF BEACONSFIELD.

understanding and sincere co-operation on the part of France ;
but I noted down last night some instances which I think I
am justified in stating to the House, and I shall place them
before you with the conviction that, when unbiassed and un-
prejudiced persons consider the transactions to which they refer
and the brief interval in which all these transactions — which
are only a part of the transactions which did occur — took place,
they will see the importance of the considerations that I am
endeavouring now to impress upon them.

Let me, then, mention some instances, to which I can without
impropriety allude, in which during the time that we occupied
office we found the advantage of having a cordial understanding
with our neighbours. There was a misunderstanding between
France and Switzerland on a subject which disquieted Europe,,
and which many supposed at one moment might greatly disturb
the peaceful relations of the world. Our advice was accepted
in that case. Our good offices were tendered and accepted,
and that cloud was completely dispelled. Take another case —
the case in which France joined with us in the negotiation for
the opening of the South American rivers. That was an opera-
tion tending to increase the commercial relations of the world,
and to advance that cause of progress which all are so anxious
to- foster. Then there was the case of Prussia and Neufchatel,
when a violent course might have been anticipated on the part
of Prussia against Neufchatel ; but the united representations
of France and England, made in the most friendly spirit to the
enlightened monarch who governs Prussia, led to the happy
termination of that affair. A fourth instance is one in which
France joined with us in pressing upon the United States the
tripartite renunciation of Cuba. It is true we did not succeed
in the immediate object of that interference"; but the moral
effect of the step has been very considerable, and at least indi-
cated a total absence on the part of France of that anxiety
to keep alive subjects and opportunities of public embroilment
which has been so liberally imputed to her. We succeeded
also, in cordial union with France, in preventing the war which
was about to break out in Hayti,

But I will take another case, because it is greatly to the

OUE RELATIONS WITH FRANCE, FEBRUARY 1853. 21

honour and reputation of France — I am not forgetting, I assure
the House, a proper reserve in alluding to these subjects. I
will take the case when the peaceful relations of the Levant
were threatened last year, with regard to the tanzimat in
Egypt, which was instituted last year by the Sultan of Turkey.
We had entirely failed diplomatically in inducing the Sultan to
modify that tanzimat. Now, although it has always been the
traditional policy of France to encourage the independent con-
duct of the Pacha of Egypt, and not to be too apt to aid in
terminating disputes between the Prince and the Porte, yet
when affairs assumed an aspect which seemed to threaten a
disturbance in the Levant, we appealed to the cordial feeling of
France ; she joined with us, and by our united influence, the
tanzimat was modified, and the question in dispute was amic-
ably arranged. I "might state another instance. I might
appeal to the conduct of France in reference to the revision of
the Greek Succession Treaty, which secured to the Greeks the
fulfilment of their constitutional law. I might also appeal to
the conduct of France and to her cordial co-operation with
England, though against some of her apparent interests, in
preventing the disturbances which threatened the new Regency
of Tunis.

I have stated eight instances in which the cordial union of
France assisted us in preventing great evils, not only to this
country, but to the world generally ; but remember that during
all this time, while all this was taking place, much to the credit
of the noble lord who then presided over the Foreign Office
(the Earl of Malmesbury), and who has had such scanty justice
done him, but to whose indefatigable application and deter-
mined energy this country is much indebted — remember that
all this time, while the French Government were quietly,
tranquilly, and diplomatically working with our Government for
these great objects of public benefit and advantage — that
French Government was painted as corsairs and banditti, watch-
ing to attack our coasts without the slightest provocation and
without the slightest warning. Well then, I have shown that
the cordial understanding between England and France was
the great principle, so far as our foreign policy was concerned,

22 SPEECHES OF THE EAKL OF BEACONSFIELD.

of the Grovernment of Lord Derby ; but we shall always re-
member that the conduct of France, while we were in office,
was conduct which entitled that nation to the respect, sym-
pathy, and good feeling of the people of this country.

Now, Sir, in the portion of the speech of the noble lord
opposite which I just read, the House perhaps noticed one of
those fine observations which often distinguish the remarks of
the noble lord. The noble lord pointed out to the House the
advantage which the Emperor of the French has over his illus-
trious relative, in the fact that, instead of being ignorant of the
laws and Constitution of this country, he, from long residence
here, is familiar with our language, our habits, and our customs.
No doubt, Sir, that is a most beneficial circumstance in the
position of the present Emperor of the French : he has lived
long in England; he has known English society in various
classes ; his education has not been deficient in the most impor-
tant element, adversity, and it is not likely he would miscon-
ceive, however much he might be annoyed at, the character of
the English Press. No doubt, the present Emperor of the
French must have been perfectly aware that the attacks of the
Press on him were attacks for which neither the Grovernment
nor the nation, as a nation, is responsible, and if he has — as I
should suppose it is pretty well known that he has, both from
official notification and other sources — expressed indignation
and annoyance at these attacks, it must have been because he
was of opinion that when they became known to his subjects at
home, the latter might not form of the circumstances so accu-
rate an opinion as himself. It is, indeed, not likely, when
those attacks are made on his country, his subjects, and him-
self, that those who read them abroad could comprehend —
what few but Englishmen can comprehend — the exact relations
between the readers and .writers of public journals in this
country. Therefore, I am not surprised he felt indignation and
alarm at these attacks, though I agree with the noble lord that
a person who had resided so long in England as the present
Emperor of France could not for a moment misconceive the
authority of the statements in question.

Bearing that in mind, I ask the House to permit me to

OUE EELATIONS WITH FEANCE, FEBEUAEY 1853. 23

pursue my inquiry, and ask what is the feeling of the present
Government, of which the noble lord the member for the City
of London is a member, on the subject of the relations between
France and England ? We know well what were the feelings
of the Government of the noble lord on this subject when the
noble lord was at the head of the administration, and we also
know well, both from the statement I have made and from the
reference to past transactions which I have offered to the
House, what were the feelings of Lord Derby and his colleagues
on this important matter. '• i v

But I now wish to ascertain — for after all, that is the most im-
portant question — what upon this subject are the views, opinions,
and sentiments of the Government of my Lord Aberdeen ? Sir,
soon after the formation of that Government, a declaration of
opinion on this subject was made by one of its most eminent
members, the First Lord of the Admiralty.1 The First Lord of
the Admiralty, a most experienced statesman, found himself, by
his acceptance of office, and by a return to those councils he had
previously adorned, in one of the most responsible positions in
which an English minister at the formation of a Government can
find himself — upon the hustings, before his constituents, in the
face of the whole country, with the people watching for the ex-
pression of his opinions, in order that they might form some idea
of the policy of the new Government, and, I may say, with "the
whole of Europe, not less anxious as to the result, listening to
him. What, then, was the statement of the right honourable
gentleman with respect to the state of affairs in France ? The
right honourable gentleman described the ruler of France, and
he also described those whom he ruled, in one of those pithy
sentences which no one prepares with more due elaboration.
In the same sentence the right honourable gentleman contrived
to give the character not only of the Emperor of the French,
but of the French themselves. He described the Emperor of
the French as a despot who had trampled on the rights and
liberties of forty millions of men. (Loud cheers.) Nothing
demonstrates the evil of making such declarations more than
hearing them cheered in the manner the House has just wit-

1 Sir J. Graham.

24 SPEECHES OF THE EAEL OF BEACONSFIELD.

nessed. Well, according to the right honourable gentleman,
one of the most distinguished members of the cabinet of Lord
Aberdeen — which cabinet, we hoped, was to maintain that cordial
understanding with France which was the cardinal point of the
policy of the Government of the noble lord opposite and of the
Government of Lord Derby — the present ruler of France is a
despot who has trampled on the rights and liberties of forty
millions of human beings. Therefore, the French people,
according to the right honourable gentleman, are a nation of
slaves ; and a despot and slaves are those with whom we are to
have a cordial understanding, in order to prevent those dangers
and to secure those blessings which, by a reference to those
proceedings which I have already detailed, are the consequences
of having a cordial understanding with France.

Well, if I had to form an opinion of the policy of the cabinet
from the first declaration made by so eminent a member of it
as the First Lord of the Admiralty, I should certainly be induced
to suppose that some great change was about to occur. How
are we to account for such a declaration? I will not be
so impertinent as to suppose it was an indiscretion. An indis-
cretion from ' All the Talents ' ? — impossible ! Can it, then, be
design ? I will not misrepresent the right honourable gentle-
man ; I will not commit the mistake I made the other day.
I understand from what the noble lord opposite then stated that
you may call the French slaves if you are speaking illustratively
of politics in general ; but you must not call the Emperor of
the French a tyrant, or his subjects slaves, if you are formally
treating of the foreign relations of the country. Now, I frankly
admit that the right honourable gentleman was not treating of
the foreign relations of the country ; he was only offering argu-
ments against extended suffrage and vote by ballot — arguments,
by the way, which I trust have had a due influence on the mind
of the President of the Board of Works (Sir William Molesworth).
The right honourable gentleman made some significant obser-
vations on the subject. I do not allude to his promise of ob-
taining a large measure of Parliamentary Reform, because on
the hustings there must be allowed some licence on such sub-
jects, though there can be no doubt that whatever liberties you

OUE EELATIONS WITH FKAKCE, FEBRUARY 1853. 25

may take with your constituents, a councillor of Her Majesty
ought at least to be careful when he speaks of a foreign poten-
tate.

I must therefore assume, until in the pursuit of my investi-
gation I can arrive at a different conclusion — I must assume
for the moment that this was a declaration made without
design. The present Government tell us that they have no
principles — at least, not at present. Some people are un-
charitable enough to suppose that they have not got a party ;
but, in Heaven's name, why are they ministers if they have not
got discretion ? That is the great quality on which I had thought
this cabinet was established. Vast experience, administrative
adroitness — safe men, who never would blunder — men who
might not only take the Government without a principle and
without a party, but to whom the country ought to be grateful
for taking it under such circumstances ; yet, at the very first
outset, we find one of the most experienced of these eminent
statesmen acting in the teeth of the declarations of the noble
lord opposite, and of Lord Grey, made in 1852 ; and holding up
to public scorn and indignation the ruler and the people a
good and cordial understanding with whom is one of the cardinal
points of all sound statesmanship.

Well, Sir, another minister has also given his opinion on the
politics of France. Parliament had not resumed its sittings
before two of these experienced men had expressed publicly
sentiments which startled the country, which alarmed Europe,
and which were apologised for, in one instance, by the noble
lord opposite. I am not going now to say a single word on the
observations of the President of the Board of Control (Sir
Charles Wood) as regards their offensive character to the
Emperor of the French. The right honourable gentleman has
explained in a letter that he may have said unpremeditatedly
that the Emperor of the French ' gagged the Press of France,
that he gagged the Press of Brussels, and that he hates our
Press because it speaks the truth, and he cannot gag it,' but
still he did not mean to say anything at all offensive to the
Emperor. I know the right honourable gentleman is in the
habit of saying very offensive things without meaning it. I

26 SPEECHES OF THE EAEL OF BEACONSFIELD.

know he has outraged the feelings of many individuals without
the slightest intention of doing so ; and therefore, in reference
to so peculiar an organisation, I can only say that that is a very
awkward accomplishment. But this speech at Halifax, in which
the -discreet President of the Board of Control followed the ex-
perienced First Lord of the Admiralty with a wonderful harmony
of conduct and sympathy of sentiment, contained far more im-
portant allegations than the personal words to which the letter
of the right honourable the President of the Board of Control
referred the other day.

What does the right honourable gentleman mean by the
Press of Belgium being gagged ? I do not know whether right
honourable gentlemen opposite are aware of the position oJ
Belgium ; whether they know that it is an independent country,
governed by one whom I may fairly describe as the wisest and
most accomplished of living princes. What a description is
given of the position of the King of the Belgians, to say nothing
of the Belgian people, when a minister of Queen Victoria
publicly announces to Europe that the King of the Belgians
is in a state more humiliating than the slaves who, according
to the statement of the First Lord of the Admiralty, are the
subjects of the Emperor of the French, and that he permits the
Press of his country to be gagged by a foreign Power ? Now,
what are the facts ? Is the Press of Belgium gagged ? Is the
prince in whom England must always take an interest irrespec-
tive of his great talents and accomplishments — is he in the
humiliating position of having his Press gagged ? Let us look
into the facts of this important case, and let us see whether
they have been correctly stated by the President of the Board
of Control, who, from his position, ought to be acquainted with
some of them. Belgium is a country the independence and
neutrality of which are guaranteed by treaties to which England
is a party, and that independence and neutrality are not to be
impeached or violated without England interfering with other
Powers to vindicate the rights and establish the authority of
that country. There is no slight question at stake in this
matter; because, if the Press of Belgium be gagged by a
foreign Power, where is the independence of that country?

OUK RELATIONS WITH FRANCE, FEBRUARY 1853. 27

And where and at what hour may not England be called on, in
conformity with treaties which cannot be evaded, to emancipate
Belgium from this thraldom. I recommend honourable gentle-
men to take that point into consideration, in consequence of
the statement made on the high authority of a gentleman fresh
from cabinet councils, who must therefore be supposed to have
a complete and accurate idea of the state of Europe.

There was this difference between the Press of England and
that of Belgium in reference to French affairs, that the news-
papers published in Belgium against the Emperor of the French
were printed in the language of his countrymen, and that they
openly incited to and recommended the assassination of the
ruler of France. Of course, under these circumstances, it is
not remarkable that the ruler of France complained of such
flagrant outrages. It is impossible to say, if no redress had
been given or offered, what might not have been the conse-
quences. It is very possible that Belgium might have become
involved in invasion because no protection against such outrages
towards a neighbouring sovereign could be given. It is also
very possible that the Great Powers might not have conceived
it to be their duty, under the circumstances, to assist in the
rescue of that country. But see the embroilment of Europe
that might then have arisen. Perhaps England alone would
have been left as the champion of Belgium, because it is not
likely that we should have deserted our neighbours, whose in-
dependence we are bound to maintain.

What, then, did the King of the Belgians do ? He acted
like a wise and able sovereign. He did not submit to his Press
being gagged ; he made no humiliating concessions ; but he
felt that the appeal made to him was a just appeal, that the
outrage was an unjustifiable outrage ; and he went to his own
free Parliament, and said that it was an intolerable grievance
that a neighbouring prince should be held up to assassination
by newspapers in Belgium, and in the language read by his own
subjects ; and he appealed to the Parliament to do what was
proper. And what was the course of the free Parliament of
Belgium? I believe, without a dissentient voice, certainly
without any important opposition, they passed a law declaring

28 SPEECHES OF THE EAKL OF BEACONSFIELD.

that papers in the French language, or in any language, should
not be published in Belgium that recommended the assassina-
tion of neighbouring Princes ; and thus in the most efficient and
the most constitutional manner, that consummate sovereign
terminated a difficulty which threatened his country, in a way
most honourable to all parties. And yet it was not a newspaper,
it was not one of those vile prints that counsel assassination,
that made the statement that the Press of Belgium is gagged,
but a councillor of Queen Victoria, an experienced statesman,
a statesman selected to sit in the councils of the Government
(where there is no regard to the principles of the gentlemen
who compose it, as that is a question of second-rate import-
ance)— selected to take office on account of his admirable dis-
cretion, his unfailing judgment, and the certainty that under
no circumstances he would do or say anything that could commit
his colleagues.

I observe that on the day when the right honourable gentle-
man made his speech at Halifax, the cabinet met and sat
four hours. Now, when a cabinet sits four hours, the subjects
considered must be weighty. The right honourable gentleman
the Chancellor of the Exchequer smiles, as if the cabinet was
sitting on the income-tax. Oh, no ! I am sure the cabinet
could not have been sitting on the income-tax. It is fully
avowed and frankly acknowledged that all questions of domestic
interest are to be suspended — adjourned to the Greek Kalends,
for aught we know — and therefore it is clear it could not have
been about any question of domestic policy the Queen's servants
met that day and sat so long. It is not, therefore, too rash a
supposition to imagine that something connected with the
foreign relations of the country may have occupied their
thoughts. It is not difficult even — this, of course, is only a
conjecture — to conceive the subject which attracted their
attention ; for the newspapers were teeming with accounts of
the arrival of Grovernment messengers with despatches from
the Turkish empire, a portion of which was at the time dis-
turbed. That problem which has perplexed the minds and
occupied the anxious thoughts of statesmen for more than half
a century — the state of the Turkish empire — was probably the

OUK RELATIONS WITH FRANCE, FEBKUAEY 1853. 29

subject under the consideration of Her Majesty's ministers.
Everyone knows how much is at stake in the solution of that
> problem. It is a question, not only of the peace of Europe,
but of the civilisation of the world. And how have English
statesmen hitherto dealt with it ? In what manner have they
attempted to grapple with the difficulties of this ever-reverting
subject of perplexity and peril? Only in one way. They
have recognised but one means by which a temperate, wise,
and successful issue could be insured. And what is that ? A
cordial understanding with France. The traditionary policy of
that great empire has led it always to feel that it must not
sacrifice a high principle of State for any temporary success, or
any petty and partial acquisition which it might be able to
secure. So long as France and England thoroughly understand
each other on this great question, the peace of the world and
the interests of civilisation and humanity are not in peril.

I will assume, then, the Turkish question to have been the
subject of the cabinet council of four hours, and I cannot well
conceive any subject more worthy of such prolonged delibera-
tion. I can conceive Her Majesty's ministers quitting the
council chamber deep in thought and fully impressed with the
almost awful responsibility of their decision upon that policy ;
and I can also conceive the feelings of these same ministers
when next morning they read the speech at Halifax, and found
that their absent colleague had designated in terms of ignominy
the sovereign Power with whom they were to act as an ally,
and treated — as I will presently show — the nation he rules
over as the lowest, in point of civilisation, that can well be
conceived.

As regards the First Lord of the Admiralty (Sir James
Graham), he has had a great deal of experience, to be sure,
but then he has been a long time in Opposition, and something
might be said for him in the way of excuse on that account, if,
indeed, so great a personage can condescend to an excuse. The
right honourable baronet might say, or somebody might say
for him, ' Well, I have been a good many years without at-
tending cabinet councils. This occurred before any new
cabinet councils were summoned. I was unexpectedly called

30 SPEECHES OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD.

to power — without any previous arrangements or understanding,
of course. I had not yet attended the councils of Her
Majesty's servants when I went to the hustings. It is a strange
thing that I should have made such a business of it ; but still
these things will happen.'

But what was the position of the President of the Board
of Control ? He was hardly out of office but he was in again.
He had been in office five or six years, and a hardish time
he had of it, no doubt ; but nevertheless he agreed again to
lend his gravity to the councils of his Eoyal Mistress. He was
so properly anxious that the people of this country should have
none but discreet men to administer their affairs that, without
making any stipulations as to the policy or principles of the
Government, he became a minister again, and attended twenty
cabinet councils before he went down to make the Halifax
demonstration ; and yet, with this renovated sense of responsi-
bility— knowing how much depended upon everything said by
a minister under these circumstances — the right honourable
gentleman, fresh from cabinet councils, knowing all the ques-
tions at issue, goes to his constituents, describes the ruler of
the French in language I have more than once referred to, and
will not now repeat, and then proceeds, in a passage which I
have not yet read to the House, to give the people of Halifax
some idea of the conduct of the Emperor's subjects. The right
honourable gentleman feels it necessary to vindicate the in-
creased expenditure of the country to his constituents, and he
shows them, as it was not difficult to do, that this expenditure
had been incurred solely for self-defence. But then the right
honourable gentleman goes on to illustrate the importance of
these defensive measures ; * For,' says he, * I do not think
there will be a regular war with the French, but I tell you
what you will have : you will have bodies of 5,000 men sud-
denly thrown upon your coast, and how would you like that ?
How would your wives and daughters be treated ? ' This is a
description of the bravest, the most polished, and most in-
genious nation of Christendom by one of Her Majesty's
ministers.

Now, I shall not express my own opinion of this definition.

OUE EELATIONS WITH FEANCE, FEBEUAEY 1853. 31

or description of the French nation by the President of the
Board of Control ; but I will quote the words of a great Whig
minister, whose memory must be respected by every gentleman
on the opposite bench — I was going to say by every member
of the Government, but that, perhaps, would be going too far.
In the debate which took place in the House of Lords on Mr.
Pitt's commercial treaty with France in 1787, Lord Stormont,
I think it was, opposing the treaty, put forward as one of his
arguments that it would be dangerous for British merchants
to invest so much money in France, because in the case of a
war the French Grovernment would seize upon all their capital ;
•whereupon Lord Shelburne — who now bore the honoured name
of Lansdowne — ridiculed such sentiments, saying, ' One would
suppose in listening to the noble lord, that he imagines the
French nation to be corsairs and banditti of Tunis and
Morocco.' Well, that is what I say to the President of the
Board of Control. The Halifax hypothesis is, that without
declaring war, and in utter violation of all the rules which
govern civilised nations, the French will land bands of men on -
our coast, to commit the desecrating enormities hinted at ; and
I say that the man who conceives this to be possible must
imagine the bravest, the most ingenious, and the most polished
people in the world to be no better than corsairs of Tunis and
Morocco ; and yet, after having said all these things, the right
honourable gentleman writes a letter to the leader of the
House of Commons1 — mind, I am not touching on his apology
to the ruler of France ; I have omitted all that from considera-
tion to-night : I do not think much of the apology ; I can't
say I think it a handsome one — but let that pass ; I am looking
to the principles involved, and the great interests at stake in
the speeches and statements of a cabinet minister. In this
letter the right honourable gentleman says, quite in his own
vein, ' I cannot conceive that an English minister is to be pre-
cluded from adverting to what he conceives to be the state of
things on the Continent.' Well, I will match that sentence
for style against any sentence that was ever written; it is,
indeed, worthy of the position which the right honourable
1 Lord John Russell.

32 SPEECHES OF THE EARL OF BEACON SFIELD.

gentleman occupied. He is apologising to an Emperor for an
insult to a nation, and then he tells us that he is not conscious
that an English minister should be precluded from adverting
to what he conceives to be the state of things on the Continent.

My opinion is, that an English minister should not open his
mouth on any subject, and certainly not upon what the
President of the Board of Control calls ' the state of things on
the Continent,' without a grave sense of responsibility. And,
moreover, I think that if, under the circumstances, the Presi-
dent of the Board of Control thought it his duty to advert to
what he supposed to be the state of things on the Continent, he
ought, as a minister, to have been courteous in expression and
conciliatory in language. But I cannot admit the principle
that an English minister should take part in the most secret
deliberations of the greatest kingdom of the world, and then
leave the cabinet to babble on a hustings all that he has heard.
What cabinet ministers understand to be the state of things
on the Continent is a great secret of State. We have no right
to ask them to divulge it in this House, much less in the Odd
Fellows' Hall at Halifax.

Well, I have advanced so far in this argument that we have
arrived, so far as the sentiments of Her Majesty's ministers on
the all-important question of our relations with France are con-
cerned, at a very unsatisfactory point. Though there might be
no doubt as to the policy of the noble lord ! opposite when he
was chief minister — though there could be no doubt of the policy
of Lord Derby when he was chief minister — as regards our re-
lations with that country, hitherto, if we are to be guided by wha
has transpired in the speeches of two members of the cabinet
there is very grave doubt as to what the policy of the presen
cabinet of the Earl of Aberdeen is to be. I think that it is
not only a legitimate subject of investigation and inquiry, bu
that it is our absolute duty to obtain from the present cabinet
if possible, something more satisfactory upon this all-importam
subject. For be it observed that the Emperor of the French
with all his English experience, cannot for a moment look upon
the declarations I have quoted as only the declarations of private
1 Lord J, Russell.

OUR RELATIONS WITH FRANCE, FEBRUARY 1853. 33

individuals. They are not anonymous or unauthorised declara-
tions ; and in his mind they may rightly be esteemed as national
declarations, being expressions of opinion by members of Her
Majesty's Government. They must be viewed, therefore, in a
very different light to opinions expressed, and legitimately ex-
pressed, by the public journals of the country.

But there are additional and peculiar reasons why we should
make this inquiry at the present time. When the present
Government took office, the head of the Government offered
what is called a programme of his policy in another place — a
programme so vigorous and lucid in the opinion of the noble
lord opposite, that he considered it quite exhausted the subject,
that it left no topic untouched and no doubt upon any topic in
the mind of any individual ; and ' therefore the noble lord said
that he would not presume to add anything. Now, there was
a declaration in that programme upon the foreign policy of the
Government. I beg to call the attention of the House to that
very important declaration. Remember who made it ; remember
it was made, not only by the Prime Minister of England, but
by one who had filled the highest offices of State, and especially
had been more than once and for a considerable period
Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. Therefore, although a
minister is bound to know something of everything, the House
will observe that upon this topic the chief minister was bound
to know everything. It is a subject of which he is pre-
eminently master. Let us then recall to our recollection the
statement in the satisfactory programme made by the Earl of
Aberdeen. He said it was unnecessary to dilate upon the topic,
because the system and the principles on which the foreign
policy of this country had been conducted during the last thirty
years had always been the same.

Sir, I confess I listened to that statement with surprise. I
could not but recall to mind the tempestuous debates which
only three years ago resounded in this House on the subject of
our foreign policy.1 I could not forget that the system and

• * The reference is to the Debates on the affairs of Greece which took place
in both "Houses in the month of June 1850. In the Upper House the vote
of censure, proposed by Lord Stanley, was carried by a majority of 37 ; in the
TOL. II. D

34 SPEECHES OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD.

principles of the foreign policy then pursued, and which has
been pursued for years by the Government presided over by
the noble lord the member for London, had been described as
unbecoming to the dignity of England and perilous to the
peace of Europe. I could not but remember that this was the
language used by one of his colleagues in this coalition
ministry. I could not but recollect that Lord Aberdeen him-
self with reference to the then foreign policy and the principles
on which it was conducted had used an epithet rarely admitted
into Parliamentary debate, for he stigmatised them as ' abomin-
able.' I could not but recollect also that the great indictment
of the foreign policy of the then Government was opened in
this House with elaborate care and vehement invective by the
honourable baronet now First Lord of the Admiralty (Sir J.
Graham). I therefore was somewhat surprised when I found
that for thirty years there had been no difference in the
principles on which the foreign policy of this country had been
conducted. I could not but recollect, too, that the noble lord
the member for London denounced the principal instigator l of
those debates as one who did not take the foremost part in
them which he ought to have done, and as being in league with
foreign conspirators for the most disgraceful object which it
was possible for a British statesman, if it could be proved, to
pursue. I could not but remember the glowing and fervid
eloquence with which the noble lord vindicated his noble friend
the then Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and still a Secretary
of State, when, commending him as a truly British minister, he
said, * He is not the minister of Austria ; he is not the minister
of Kussia ; he is not the minister of France, but the minister
of England.'

Who, then, was the minister of Kussia, Austria, and France ?
Who sat for that portrait ? It is the portrait of the present
Prime Minister of England 2 drawn by his leader of the House

Lower a vote of confidence, proposed by Mr. Roebuck, was carried by a majority
of 46. Lord Aberdeen in the one House and Sir J. Graham and Mr. Gladstone
in the other particularly distinguished themselves against the Government.

1 It is not quite clear to whom these words are applied. From Lord J,
Russell's remarks on June 20 it would appear to be Mr. Disraeli himself.

2 Lord Aberdeen.

CUE RELATIONS WITH FRANCE, FEBRUARY 1853. 35

f Commons, and he has paid the artist for his performance by
legrading him from the post of which he was worthy. I hold
n my hand an invitation to a meeting of the merchants,
Dankers, and traders of the city of London ' who feel called on
it this time publicly to express their deep concern at witnessing
:he endeavours continually made to create and perpetuate feel-
ngs of distrust, ill-will and hostility between the inhabitants
)f the two great nations of France and England.' I therefore
•ecommend some of the honourable members who attempt to
listurb my observations to go to the London Tavern and tell
the merchants, bankers and traders of England that they are
•exhibiting a factious feeling towards the Government because
they feel alarmed and disquieted as to their commercial trans-
actions. I will not be deterred from putting the question I am
•about to ask. I say we have a right to ask ministers upon what
principle our foreign policy is to be conducted. Is their system
to be one of * liberal energy ' or of ' antiquated imbecility ' ?
When the noble viscount opposite (Lord Palmerston), who was
then Foreign Secretary, was vindicating himself from attacks,1
Tie took credit for the liberal energy of his policy, and described
the principles recommended by his present chief as a system
of ' antiquated imbecility.' Now, I think it of the utmost im-
portance that we should clearly know whether the foreign policy
•of this country is to be carried on on principles of liberal energy
or of antiquated imbecility. But, Sir, I have shown to the
House that already two cabinet ministers have acted in a
manner quite opposed to the declaration of 1852. I have
shown that the programme of the First Minister does not in
any way remove the difficulties with which we are surrounded,
and that it is utterly inconsistent with the facts of the case
according to a large number of the members of the present
cabinet.

If the principles of our foreign policy have never changed,
how can the Chancellor of the Exchequer 2 and the First Lord of
the Admiralty vindicate the course which they formerly took,
the resolutions which they then supported, and the sentiments

1 I.e. in the Greek Debate. Vide s-ttpra.

2 Mr. Gladstone.

D 2

36 SPEECHES OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD.

they then expressed ? I think they will find it a difficult task.
I have no doubt the noble lord is perfectly convinced of the
justice and truth of the sentiments he expressed in 1852.
Anything that falls from his lips on such a subject — or, indeed,
upon any subject — as Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs,1 is
entitled to the highest consideration. But, how long is he
going to remain Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs ? I am
not speaking now from mere rumour. I ask — and it is a legiti-
mate question in a debate on our foreign policy — why did the
noble lord take the important post he occupies ? Was it be-
cause his opinions on the French connection were well known?
Well, is he going to leave the post because his cabinet, or the
majority of his cabinet, does not agree with those opinions ?
This is clearly a subject on which some explanation is due to
the House.

I know I may be met, but I hardly think I shall be met,
by the allegation that I have no right, to suppose the noble
lord is about to quit the office he is so competent to occupy. I
said I do not speak from rumour on this point, and I will now
state to the House the authority on which I said so. It is a
paragraph in a paper — a journal. I hope, notwithstanding the
conduct of the journals that have criticised some of us, it will
not be undervalued on that account. It is, to borrow an expres-
sion from our neighbours, < a communication,' and it appears in
a journal of great respectability. It appears in large letters,
in a prominent place, in a newspaper, and commences with the
significant words, ' We are authorised to state ' — in fact, it is
redolent of Downing Street, and no doubt comes from it. This
first paragraph, for there have been four of them — informs us
that the arrangements which were not quite made when the
cabinet was formed are now pretty well settled : the noble lord
the member for London is to continue leader of the House of
Commons, but is to relinquish the office of Secretary of State,
and he will probably not assume any other office. I have not the
paragraphs here, and it was only by chance I read them yester-
day, but I can state pretty nearly the substance of them. That

1 Lord J. Russell was Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs during the early
part, of the Coalition Government, and was succeeded by Lord Clarendon.

OUR KELATIONS WITH FRANCE, FEBRUARY 1853. 37

was a very strange announcement no doubt, but then came the
second paragraph. We understood from the first that the
noble lord had accepted office as Secretary of State provision-
ally ; but people were surprised at this, and then there came
forth another paragraph, in which they 'were authorised to
state ' that this was a mistake, that the noble lord was not to
hold office as Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, but to have
some office where there was nothing to do, somewhere in the
neighbourhood of Waterloo Bridge. In fact, the only place the
description met was that of the toll-gatherer.

Well, Sir, that paragraph was not satisfactory. The noble
lord, whatever the opinions of some of us may be, is rather a
favourite of the people of England, and they did not think that
was exactly the treatment to which a man of his position was
entitled. There was then another paragraph, in which it was
stated ' on authority,' that all the other paragraphs were erro-
neous— that the noble lord was going to resign the office of
Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, but was certainly to con-
tinue leader of the House, and was to have a room allowed him
in the office of the Secretary of State. But the climax was
reached when a fourth and rather an angry paragraph, written,
it seemed, with some personal indignation at what had already
been published, appeared, in which it was stated that nothing
could be more erroneous or premature than the previous an-
nouncement that the noble lord was to continue leader of the
House of Commons ; that he was not to have a small room at
the Foreign Office, but that he was to have a room at the Coun-
cil Office, and even to be allowed two clerks.

Sir, I protest against this system of shutting up great men
in small rooms, and of binding to the triumphal chariot wheels
of administrative ability, all the force and genius of the Whig
party. I think I have a right to ask the noble lord frankly,
' Are you Secretary of State, or are you not ? ' If he is Secre-
tary of State for Foreign Affairs, he will no doubt, on the subject
we are treating to-night, afford us very satisfactory information ;
but if he is Secretary of State now, but is not to be Secretary
of State to-morrow, I think the declarations of the noble lord
on a question of foreign policy will be much depreciated in the

38 SPEECHES OF THE EAEL OF BEACONSFIELD.

value which we should otherwise attach to them. Sir, consider-
ing the conduct of the First Lord of the Admiralty — conduct
which I will not describe, for to say that it was the result of
design would be offensive, and to say that it was indiscreet
would, as I observed before, be impertinent ; considering the
conduct of the President of the Board of Control, which, be it
designed or indiscreet, or anything else, is of no matter, for no
epithets can rescue him from the position he occupies ; con-
sidering the programme of the First Minister, which contradicts
all our previous experience and confounds all our convictions ;
considering the mysterious circumstances which attend the
present occupation of the post of Secretary of State by the
noble lord the member for London, I think I have a right to
ask for what has not yet been accorded us — some clear explana-
tion from the Government with respect to the relations which
exist between this country and France.

Sir, there is one other reason why I am bound to pursue
this inquiry at the present moment, and I find that reason in
the present state of parties in this House. It is a peculiar
state of things ; it is quite unprecedented ; it is well deserving
of the attention of honourable members who sit in that quarter
of the House [the benches below the gangway on the ministerial
side~\. We have at this moment a Conservative ministry and
a Conservative Opposition. Where the great Liberal party is,
I pretend not to know. Where are the Whigs with their great
tradition — two centuries of Parliamentary lustre, and deeds of
noble patriotism ? There is no one to answer. Where are the
youthful energies of Kadicalism — its buoyant expectation — its
sanguine hopes? Awakened, I fear, from the first dream oJ
that ardent inexperience which finds itself at the same moment
used and discarded — used without compunction, and not dis-
carded with too much decency. Where are the Eadicals ? Is
there a man in the House who declares himself to be a Eadical?
(A voice : * Yes ! ') Oh, no ! You would be afraid of being caught
and changed into a Conservative minister. Well ! how has
this curious state of things been brought about ? What is the
machinery by which it has been effected — -the secret system

OUE EELATIONS WITH FRANCE, FEBRUARY 1853. 39

that has brought on this portentous political calamity ? I
think I must go to that inexhaustible magazine of political
device, the First Lord of the Admiralty, to explain the present
state of affairs.

The House may recollect that some two years ago, when I
had the honour of addressing them on a subject of some impor-
tance, that the right honourable gentleman the First Lord of
the Admiralty afforded us, as is his wont, one of those political
creeds in which his speeches abound ; and the right honourable
gentleman on that occasion, in order that there might be no
mistake— in order that the House and the country should be
alike undeceived, and that they should not have any false ex-
pectations from him — especially the Conservative or Protec-
tionist party — said, in a manner the most decided, that his
political creed was this : ' 1 take my stand upon Progress.'
Well, Sir, I thought at the time that progress was an odd thing
to take one's stand upon. I thought at the time that a states-
man who took his stand upon progress might find he had got
a very slippery foundation. I thought at the time, though the
right honourable gentleman weighs his words, that this was a
piece of rhetorical slip-slop. But I apologise for the momen-
tary suspicion. I take the earliest opportunity of expressing
to the right honourable gentleman my sincere regret that I
had for a moment supposed he could make an inadvertent
observation. I find that it was a system perfectly matured,
and now brought into action, of which the right honourable
gentleman spoke. For we have now got a ministry of * Pro-
gress,' and everyone stands still. We never hear the word
4 Reform ' now : it is no longer a ministry of Reform ; it is a
ministry of Progress, every member of which agrees to do
nothing. All difficult questions are suspended. All questions
which cannot be agreed upon are open questions. Now, Sir,
I don't want to be unreasonable, but I think there ought to be
some limit to this system of open questions. It is a system
which has hitherto prevailed only partially in this country, and
which never has prevailed with any advantage to it. Let us,
at least, fix some limit to it. Let Parliamentary Reform, let

40 SPEECHES OF THE EARL OF EEACONSFIELD.

the Ballot, be open questions if you please ; let every institu-
tion in Church and State be open questions ; but, at least, let
your answer to me to-night prove that, among your open ques-
tions, you are not going to make an open quest ion""of the peace
of Europe.

41

PROSECUTION OF WAR, May 24, 1855.

[In March 1855 Lord John Russell had gone out as Plenipoten-
tiary to the Vienna Conference ; and while there had offered to re-
commend to his colleagues terms of peace proposed by Austria, which
on his return home, finding that they did not approve of them, he
forbore to press, and did not divulge to Parliament. Soon after his
return he delivered a most warlike speech. But Mr. Disraeli believed
that on his first return from Vienna these proposals were more
favourably received by the cabinet than the public had been led to
believe, and that at one moment ' a new coalition ' was meditated, 011
the basis of them, which would have brought to the Government the s\ip-
port of Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Milner Gibson and the Peace Party, with-
out which it was liable to defeat at any moment. The Resolution
therefore was intended to force the Government to declare itself. On
•a division being taken the motion was negatived by 319 votes to 219.]

ME. DISKAELI rose, according to notice, to move the fol-
lowing resolution : —

< That this House cannot adjourn for the recess without ex-
pressing its dissatisfaction with the ambiguous language and
uncertain conduct of Her Majesty's Government in reference to
the great question of peace or war ; and that, under these cir-
cumstances, this House feels it a duty to declare that it will
continue to give every support to Her Majesty in the prosecu-
tion of the war until Her Majesty shall, in conjunction with her
allies, obtain for this country a safe and honourable peace.'

He said : In rising, Sir, to move the resolution which is now
in your hands I wish in the first place to explain to the House
the reasons by which I am actuated in so doing, and the object
which I have in view. Sir, I have watched for some time, as I
suppose every member in this House has watched, with interest
and with deep anxiety, the conduct of the Government with

42 SPEECHES OF THE EAKL OF BEACONSFIELD.

respect to the great question of peace or war during the recent
Conference at Vienna ; and I have imbibed an opinion with
respect to the intentions of the Government which has filled
me with distrust. I thought that there was on their part
language so ambiguous and conduct so uncertain that I was led1
to reflect what might be the consequences of circumstances
which undoubtedly had filled the public mind of this country
with great disquietude and great discontent, and which cer-
tainly demanded the attention and consideration of every man
who felt that he had a responsible duty to perform in this
House. It was impossible for me, entertaining that opinion, to
ask that the sentiments of this House should be publicly de-
clared on this subject so long as negotiations were going on.
Everybody knows that the obvious and irresistible answer to me
would have been, ' Her Majesty's servants are at this moment
engaged in confidential communication with the representatives
of foreign Powers, and it would be highly indecorous and might
be injurious to the interests of Her Majesty's service if the
criticisms of Parliament should interfere with the probable
result of their labours.' Who can for a moment deny that such
an objection would be entirely judicious and could not for a
moment be resisted? At last, Sir, after some inquiry and
after an unusual period of time, the protocols of the negotiations
were laid on the table of this House, and I did anticipate that
the minister, following the precedents which as I think ought to
have regulated his conduct, would have taken the earliest
opportunity of asking the opinion of Parliament upon the labours
of the representative of his Ofovernment, and would have also
taken the same opportunity of laying before the House of
Commons — without of course committing himself to embarrass-
ing details, but still frankly, precisely, and explicitly — what
were the intentions of the Grovernment with regard to the
great question of peace or war.

Well, Sir, I more than once invited the First Minister to
take that course, and I confess that even to the last I did
believe that he would have reconsidered his first conclusion,
and that- he would have felt that he was doing his duty more
satisfactorily to his sovereign, to Parliament, and to the country

PKOSECUTION OF WAE, MAY 1855. 43

if he had pursued the course which I had intimated. I did
hope that the noble lord would have perceived that the public
mind was in that state as certainly to render it necessary above
all things that the minister should relieve and enlighten public
opinion on subjects of such surpassing magnitude, and that he
would therefore have been anxious to ask, in the constitutional
and customary manner, the opinion of Parliament on the
course and character of the negotiation which he had sanctioned,
and the policy which he had intended to pursue.

Well, Sir, I was disappointed in that expectation, but I was
not the only person who was disappointed ; indeed, I think I
may venture to say that the House and the country were
equally disappointed; I think I may venture to say that it
would have been satisfactory to the public in the present per-
plexed and somewhat sullen disposition of the nation, if, at
the conclusion of negotiations which had been carried on upon
our part with no usual pomp and ostentation, and which had
therefore been looked to with proportionate interest — I think
it would have been satisfactory to the people of England if the
First Minister of the Crown had come forward when these
negotiations had failed, and taken that opportunity of fairly
expressing the views of his administration to Parliament, and
have given, as I should have hoped, an expression of opinion
which would have sustained and reanimated the spirit of the
country. Nothing of this kind, however, occurred ; and after
some lapse of time I hesitated whether I should myself take
the necessary step, and ultimately shrank from doing what I
felt to be my duty, from what I admit may be a cowardly fear
of those vulgar imputations which are often too influential —
imputations that a man, when compelled in the exercise of his
duty in this House to do that which may in some degree convey
a censure of the Government, is actuated by the most unworthy
motives. I declined, I am ashamed to say, and more than
once declined, to take the course that, in the position which
with the too great indulgence of my friends, I occupy, I felt
was my duty.

However, a right honourable gentleman, a member for a
great city, a member of the Privy Council of the Queen, thought

44 SPEECHES OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD.

that this was an occasion which could not be allowed to pass
unnoticed, and therefore he placed on the table of the House a
motion for an Address to Her Majesty. The right honourable
gentleman the member for Manchester (Mr. Gibson), instead
of the First Minister of the Crown, proposed an Address to Her
Majesty upon the grave question of peace or war. I hope, if
the noble lord could have screwed up his courage to propose an
Address to his Royal Mistress, that it would not have been con-
ceived in the spirit of the motion of the right honourable
member for Manchester; and the great object which I have in
view to-night is, if I possibly can, to extract among other
things from the Government a declaration to that effect.

But, Sir, the right honourable gentleman the member for
Manchester, in giving his notice, acted in a perfectly Parlia-
mentary manner, in a manner quite consistent with his own
high character and eminent talents ; and I heard of that notice
with entire satisfaction, because I felt that the question would
have been fairly brought before Jhis House, that we should
have had an opportunity of venturing at length into the dis-
cussion of topics which I am myself soon to treat upon — topics
which I believe to be of the utmost importance to the honour
and to the interests of this country. And, although I could not
support that right honourable gentleman in this motion, I was
grateful to him for affording to me and my friends the oppor-
tunity of expressing our views upon this subject, and for taking
a course which would have elicited that expression of opinion
which I believe now to be absolutely necessary for the
country.

Sir, I never for a moment supposed that that discussion
would not take place. Is there a gentleman on either side of
the House who could for an instant have imagined that it could
be suppressed ? Not the slightest objection was made on the
part of the Government when the right honourable gentleman's
notice was given. True it is that the member for Manchester
had not the power of commanding a day, in order to bring the
question before the House ; but then the unquestionable mag-
nitude and gravity of the subject to be brought under consider-
ation, the anxious feeling of the people of this country in regard

PROSECUTION OF WAR, MAY 1856. 45

to it, and the sense of propriety which I suppose still influences
a Queen's minister who is the leader of the House of Commons,
convinced everyone immediately that no privileges of place, no
arrangements of public business, could for a moment be obstacles
to appointing a day when that discussion should be fairly and
fully conducted. Accordingly, the noble lord, with that impulse
which we could only expect on his part, gave at once an oppor-
tunity for facilitating the discussion, offering to the right
honourable gentleman a day ; and at last we had an Address to
the Crowu, to be moved by a Privy Councillor, which raised the
whole question of peace or war. The day is appointed by the
minister ; Parliament is assembled ; the House is more than
usually full ; the entire attention of the nation is fixed upon
the House of Commons, believing that at length, after a dreary
interval of inglorious lassitude, this assembly was about to give
some signs of political life and Parliamentary duty ; when to
our great surprise, however — to the surprise, I should think,
of everyone who was not in the secret, for the secret was well
kept — the expectation of Parliament, of the country — I might
almost say, of Europe — was baulked, and no possible chance
whatever given for any discussion taking place upon the most
momentous transactions that have occurred in this country since
the peace of 1815, and which, strange to say, have, not only
most deeply engrossed the interest, but absorbed the thoughts
and passions of the people of England.

Sir, I need not recall to the recollection of the House what
happened here on Monday last. The scene then enacted was too
vivid and dramatic to be easily forgotten. A right honourable
gentleman suddenly rose,1 recently the colleague and, I suppose,
still the friend of the noble lord, and, whether actuated merely
by political considerations or by mere social influence, as some
suppose, that right honourable gentleman, referring to some
papers which have been long lying on the table of this House,
and which all of us have studied, turns to a well-thumbed
passage and asks the First Minister of the Crown whether, as
there slightly intimated, it be a fact that there is a possibility
of renewed negotiations taking place. I will do the noble lord
1 Mr. Sidney Herbert.

46 SPEECHES OF THE EAKL OF BEACONSFIELD.

the justice to say that he showed uncompromising courage on
that occasion, for he did not condescend to assign the slightest
ground for our believing anything of the kind. But nothing
seemed to satisfy the appetite for suppression which charac-
terised the principal conspirators on that occasion. Although the
noble lord did not give the House or the right honourable
querist the slightest ground for fearing that the discussion in
this House would interfere with any negotiations whatever,
another noble lord l — perhaps also influenced by social feelings
which we all respect — rose and, with a naivete and a simplicity
that all must have admired, first afforded the House the un-
necessary information that he had engaged to second the motion
of the member for Manchester, and in the next place said that
really, after what had fallen from the member for the Uni-
versity of Oxford 2 — not, of course, after the answer of the noble
lord — he thought it would be totally impossible for him to fulfil
his promise.

Well, Sir, in a very short time it was found that we were to
have no debate on the great question of peace or war before the
Whitsuntide holidays, which were then impending ; and, still
influenced, Sir, by the convictions which I entertain on this
subject, believing that the conduct of Her Majesty's ministers
with respect to this question deserves the utmost suspicion and
distrust, and, if not vigilantly watched and carefully controlled,
may lead to consequences most perilous to the honour and the
interests of this country, I felt it my duty to give that notice
which I shall now, Sir, soon place in your hands. That is the
simple reason for that notice. It is a notice limited to the
issue which is attempted to be raised by the resolution. If the
motion be one that involves a question of confidence or of
censure upon the Government, let it not be said that it has
been hastily prepared, or that sufficient notice has not been
afforded to honourable members. The motion, on my part, has
risen from circumstances of the hour. The gentlemen who sit
opposite have had the same notice of it as my own friends : and

1 Lord Harry Vane.

2 Mr. Gladstone spoke after Lord Palmerston's answer to Mr. Sidney
Herbert, and appealed to Mr. Gibson to withdraw his motion.

PROSECUTION OF WAE, MAY 1855. 47

I should be ashamed to attempt on such a subject to take a

minister by surprise. In fact, if the House will permit me to

say it, having no confidence in the Government, and feeling that

it would not be improper to ask the opinion of the House on

that general question, nevertheless the time alone would deter

me from giving a notice of so comprehensive a character,

because I could not, in taking such a course, have given that

,mple and sufficient notice to every member of this House

hich under such circumstances is usual. The present motion

as grown out of the peculiar circumstances which I have

described. It is a loyal and a legitimate motion; it takes

nobody by surprise, and honourable gentlemen opposite were

aware of its purpose almost as soon as those with whom I have

the honour of acting.

Now, Sir, having stated my reasons for giving this notice, I
will now venture to attempt to express what I purpose by it.
I propose to-night, if possible, to induce the House to come to
the same conclusion to which I have come myself. I think the
conduct of Her Majesty's Government with respect to the
question of peace or war has been uncertain, and their language
ambiguous, and if the House be of my opinion, I hope the
House will join with me in arresting the course of a policy
which they must feel in this case to be injurious to the
country. I purpose, if possible, to induce them to come to
that conclusion. I ask something else : I ask the House,
when uncertainty is so prevalent, when ambiguity of phrase
and conduct is so rife, that they will, in a manner which cannot
be mistaken, declare to the country that with regard to this
war their opinions have not changed, and that their spirit is
not daunted, and that while they disapprove the language and
conduct of the Government, and are resolved if they possibly
can by the vote of to-night to destroy what is the cause of this
ambiguous language and uncertain conduct, they are at the
same time ready to carry on this war until its great object — a
secure and honourable peace — be obtained. With those views
I shall to-night on this question attempt to obtain a clear and
precise opinion from the House of Commons, and also if
possible, though with less hope, from Her Majesty's ministers.

48 SPEECHES OF THE EAKL OF BEACONSFIELD.

Now, Sir, having made these observations with the indul-
gence of the House, on the course and object of this proposition,
let me, before I enter into a severer research advert to an ob-
servation made by the noble lord the other night l upon the
manner in which I gave this notice. The noble lord made a
good-humoured tu quoque — and a tu quoque should always be
good-humoured, for it has nothing else to recommend it — and
he intimated to the House, with no great refinement of ex-
pression2 that there was some concert between me and the
honourable member for Aylesbury (Mr. Layard) in bringing
forward this motion, because the honourable gentleman relin-
quished his right to bring forward his motion, to which he
could prefer a superior claim to mine. I beg to say that I had
no communication with the honourable member on this sub-
ject : I cannot say that if I had met the honourable gentleman
in the lobby, I should have refrained from having any commu-
nication with him. He has very often postponed the motion of
which he has given notice, and had I met him I might naturally
have said, * I am going to give my notice : do you really intend
to bring forward your motion ? ' But, as it happened, I did not
meet him. I state this because I do not want anybody to con-
sider that I see any impropriety in my communicating with
the honourable member for Aylesbury or anyone else. As long
as I am a member of this House I hope to maintain that frank
communication with every member of Parliament which I trust
has always distinguished my conduct. So far as the honourable
gentleman is concerned, I have known him from childhood, and
have always had great confidence in his ability and character :
his abilities are now European in fame and have justified my
opinion of them ; and whatever the unfortunate circumstances 3
which have prejudiced many against him in this House — which
I deplore, and which, so far as he is concerned, I disapprove —
still I have no doubt that the time will come when, with his
talents and excellent disposition, he will outlive those prejudices,

1 May 22.

2 ' A scene is being enacted which does great credit to all the actors con-
cerned in it.'

s Mr. Layard was at this time one of the leaders of the Administrative
Reform League.

PKOSECUTION OF WAK, MAY 1855. 49

•which I think, and I tell him so frankly, have some fair founda-
tion. The honourable gentleman and the House will not, I am
sure, misunderstand my observations. I should not have stated
this unless I had just been informed — I hope I am wrong, but
I am afraid the rumour is authentic — that the honourable
gentleman intends to vote against my motion. I do not
believe, however, that he or anyone else will vote against it
until they have heard the debate about to ensue. I think the
debate is a little too grave and important for leaders on either
side of the House to count noses with accuracy. We are going
to-night to discuss no common subject ; we are going to weigh,
scrutinise and examine the conduct of high personages intrusted
with most solemn duties and upon whose conduct of these
duties depends the greatness of this country and the happiness
and prosperity of its people. He would not be a bold man
only — he would be a shameless man — who could dare to say
before this discussion that his name was registered in the
pocket-book of any party.

Sir, the circumstances to which I am about to call the-
attention of the House will require no great exercise of memory
to command. I am not going to ask them to go back to the
passage of the Pruth, or to the declaration of war ; my criticism
to-night will be on public transactions of recent date, though
I admit that without a previous knowledge of the circumstances
that preceded them it would be more difficult to form an accurate
and sober judgment on the subject. My canvas is so small
that I shall commence with the installation in office of the
First Minister opposite.1 Glorious epoch for this country !
One cannot but remember the triumphant cheers which an-
nounced that the crown of Parliamentary laurel encircled that
reverend brow. There was a minister at last who would vindi-
cate the honour of the country ; there was a minister at last
who would carry on the war like Chatham, and who would
maintain his principles in this House like Pitt ; there was a
man, backed by an enthusiastic people to redeem a falling
State ! I remember on that occasion, when the first fervour was
a little past — when men began to cease, as it were, to feel, and

1 Lord Palmerston.
VOL. II. E

50 SPEECHES OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD.

to commence to think— that a member of the House rose in his
place and asked a significant interrogatory : I am sure the House
may anticipate the sagacious mind that would forestall the
fast-dissipating enthusiasm. The member for Carlisle l it was
who rose and asked that question. The right honourable gentle-
man had, in a moment of thoughtlessness, forgotten to leave
the cabinet when Lord Aberdeen retired; but it was a moment
of amiable weakness, which we are probably all subject to, and
which all of us, especially those in office, can easily pardon.
When the right honourable gentleman took his seat below the
gangway, and scanned the scene, and threw his sagacious eye
over the various, yet memorable, history of those thirty-seven
years to which he appealed a few nights ago, the right honour-
able gentleman then remembered that a few years back — a
very few years back— he had, assisted by the eminent lieu-
tenants who are also sitting near him, impeached the First
Minister of the Crown, on account of his conduct of our foreign
affairs. The noble lord the First Minister, if not then a traitor,
was at least a ' firebrand.' I well recall that memorable Parlia-
mentary contest which ended in a triumph for the noble lord—
a triumph, I am bound to say, not gained so much by the valour
and number of his legions as by his own distinguished prowess.
The right honourable gentleman the member for Carlisle, re-
membering all these things; remembering that his foreign
policy was the weak point of the noble lord ; remembering that
on this score he had formerly failed in turning the noble lord
out of the cabinet — a duty reserved for the noble lord opposite 2
(Lord John Russell) — rose in his place, and, in a House not very
full nor very attentive, said (he having just left the cabinet,
and his seat, although filled by a not unworthy successor, being
still warm with his ample presence) that he wished to address
an inquiry to the noble lord, with whose opinion he must, at
that time, have been familiar, and asked whether — in the new
Government of which he had been so recently a member—
whether there was to be any change in the principles upon

1 Sir James Graham.

2 In consequence of Lord Palmerston's unguarded communication to t
French Ambassador relating to the coup d'etat.

PBOSECUTION OF WAK, MAY 1855. 51

[ -which the foreign policy of the new administration was to be
conducted ; whether the policy recommended and followed by
[ Lord Aberdeen was to be adopted ; whether, above all things,
j there was to be any change in the terms and conditions which
1 our plenipotentiary was to insist upon at the Conference of
Vienna? The right honourable gentleman must, therefore,
have had some suspicion upon the subject ; but his suspicion
was in a moment dispelled. The noble lord rose and said, 'On
the contrary, our principles are the same ; our policy is entirely
identified with the policy of Lord Aberdeen ; no difference has
been dreamed of for a moment with regard to the conditions
upon which peace is to be sought for at the Vienna Conference.'
The right honourable gentleman said he heard the statement
with perfect satisfaction, and should, under those circumstances,
conscientiously refrain from even the appearance of factious
opposition to Her Majesty's Government.

We started with that interlude. Strange to say, after a

certain time the plenipotentiary, whose conduct we shall have

hereafter to discuss, returns frustrated ; a plenipotentiary who

represented the policy of Lord Aberdeen returned bootless

from the conference. The protocols in due time were laid upon

the table, but the noble lord did not, as I have before said,

fulfil his duty as Chief Minister of the Crown by moving an

address to his sovereign. Another gentleman,1 however, set

him the example, and a motion is placed upon the table.

That motion, if it meant anything, meant a disapprobation of

! the conduct of the plenipotentiary at the Conference. It meant

j that the conditions of peace he insisted upon were unreasonable,

I and that the terms which were proffered ought to have been

accepted. If it meant anything there is no doubt that it

! meant that. It is derogatory to the high character of the

' member for Manchester to suppose that it meant anything

! else. But what do the right honourable gentleman and his

two right honourable friends 2 do ? They were understood to

be the chief supporters of the motion of the right honourable

member for Manchester.2 They rose in their places and threw

1 Mr. M. Gibson.

2 Mr. Gladstone and Mr. Sidney Herbert.

E 2

52 SPEECHES OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD.

their shields over the coming conflict ; but unless I am much
mistaken — and I would not for a moment refer to the informa-
tion unless it had been given me in this House apparently with
high authority and without reserve — that cluster of eloquence l
and of intellect which had seceded from the cabinet of the
noble lord were prepared to throw the lustre of their eloquence,
to exercise their highest faculties, to make use of their finest
rhetoric in the attempt to influence the opinion of the House
in favour of the motion about to be brought forward.

What is the inference to be drawn from this ? Why, that
there was some change in the conditions on which peace was
to be sought for, and that there was some uncertainty in the
conduct for which the First Minister had given a pledge to
the right honourable baronet ; because, if the noble lord had
acted upon the pledge he had given to the right honourable
gentleman with regard to the instructions with which the
plenipotentiary was to be provided, and if the plenipotentiary
had ably and completely carried these instructions into effect,
how could the right honourable gentleman and his friends
justify to themselves their support of a motion which was to
challenge the propriety of the noble lord's conduct, and to
declare that the conditions of peace upon which Government
had insisted ought not to have been urged ? The inquiry w
made by the right honourable baronet on February 23, 1855
and this leads me back for a moment to the unsuccessful pleni
potentiary, to the critical period when that noble individ
was appointed to office ; for upon that appointment, and upo
the conduct of the noble lord at Vienna, much depends. Th
appointment of the plenipotentiary did not at the first blus
appear to be a happy one. The noble lord the member fo
London is so distinguished that I find it difficult to fix upoi
any subject or upon any part of his life in which he has nol
rendered himself remarkable ; but I know nothing by whicl
the noble lord has been more distinguished than by his denun
ciation of the power and the ambition of Russia. It is to th
noble lord that I think may be mainly attributed — and in
various career his patriotism may be sustained and rewarde

1 The Peelites.

PKOSECUTION OF WAE, MAY 1355. 53

by the recollection — the passion of this great country for a
decisive struggle with the colossal energies of the Eussian
empire. The noble lord, then occupying an eminent post —
one more eminent, I am sorry to say, than that which he now
occupies — addressed, as the leader of the House of Commons^
not only fervid but inflammatory language to the Parliament
and people of England, the object of which was to show that war
with Kussia was the duty of the country, and that it ought to
be carried on in no hesitating spirit, but ought to be undertaken
by us with a determination of realising considerable results.
The noble lord then said : —

* The British ministry and nation would be the most silly
of mortals if they were to sign an insecure peace, which would
leave it to the public enemy to bide his time until, by the
dissensions of the other Powers ; until, by the weakness of
some of these Powers, he should find a better opportunity of
accomplishing his design.'

If you cheer that you will cheer still more at what I am
about to read. The noble lord said a little later : —

' The power and ambition of Kussia are dangerous to
Europe's independence, and incompatible with Europe's future
security ; therefore, no insufficient, no insecure peace is to be
made : and England cannot lay down arms until material
guarantees are obtained, which reducing Russia's power to
proportions innocuous to the general liberty will afford perfect
security for the future.'

That is a brave spirit. When the noble lord goes to war
he knows what he is going to war about : he wants to reduce
the proportions of the Russian empire; he wants material
guarantees for peace. These are designs which some may
think rash, but all must at least respect as great. I am obliged
to refer to these circumstances in order to show the character
and the antecedents of the noble lord who was appointed our
plenipotentiary to obtain peace. It was a happy choice. The
noble lord, having frightened the country — I should not say
the country, for it was then ready for anything — but having
frightened the diplomacy of Europe with those announcements
that Her Majesty's ministers were going to reduce the propor-

54 SPEECHES OF THE EAKL OF BEACONSFIELD.

tions of the Russian empire, and were going to commence a
war which was not to terminate until we obtained material
guarantees for peace, naturally called up in the other House
of Parliament another noble lord whom, although living, I
think I may venture to call illustrious. Then it was that Lord
Lyndhurst — no advocate of a craven policy — Lord Lyndhurst,
who in a green old age has shown a manly vigour in vindicat-
ing the high character of his country ; Lord Lyndhurst, who,
although an orator and a patriot, is still a lawyer and a states-
man, asked this question : he demanded an explanation as to
the consistency of such statements as reducing the proportions
of the Russian empire and taking material guarantees with
the protocol of December 5, 1853, to which France and Eng-
land were signatories, which stated —

'The present war cannot in any case lead to territorial
diminutions or modifications of the Russian empire.'

What happened then ? I would not refer to Lord Clarendon
if he were not still Secretary of State, for I shall endeavour,
as much as I can, not to touch upon the policy of the illustrious
corpses of the Aberdeen administration. I will refer only to
existing and responsible ministers, although it is not to be
supposed that any man who is a Secretary of State now would
do anything so mean and pitiful as to say that he was not re-
sponsible for the deeds of the defunct administration. Well,
what did Lord Clarendon say ? Lord Clarendon last year was
indignant at the inquiry of Lord Lyndhurst. He said that
the language quoted by the noble and learned lord might be
the will of Austria and Prussia, but it was not the will of
England and of France. This was toward the end of the
session, and therefore, notwithstanding even the protocol
signed by France and England, which declared that, whatever
•the result of the war might be, the - territory of Russia might
not be diminished in extent, the English Government, by
the head of its diplomacy, the Secretary of State for Foreign
Affairs, stated in the highest House of Parliament that England
would not be influenced or controlled by the protocol that they
had signed.

Well, Sir, I have shown that the noble lord who was selected

PKOSECUTION OF WAE, MAY 1855. 55

for a plenipotentiary to obtain peace, was unquestionably an
advocate of war — and of war on a great scale. It is of infi-
nite importance, when we have to investigate the conduct of
the noble lord in this emergency, that we should clearly
comprehend what were the antecedents of the noble lord
and his qualifications for the office which I think he
rashly undertook. The House will remember that it is
only forty-eight hours since the First Minister of the Crown
said that, although these negotiations had been unsuccessful,
they had been conducted with consummate ability. The noble
lord (Viscount Palmerston) nods his head. I accept that
ceremony as if the noble lord threw down his glove, and I call
upon the House of Commons, without respect to party, to give
a verdict with respect to the conduct of our plenipotentiary at
Vienna. Do not let it be said that I am making comments
upon the conduct of the noble lord because I am a member of
a different political party, and that this is a party move. If I
show that his conduct at those Conferences led to consequences
prejudicial to the public weal, it is my duty to bring these
things forward. It was not enough that the noble lord made
the speech to which I have referred, but he, the plenipotentiary
of peace, distinguished himself in this House by the high tone
he assumed with regard to Kussia, and the rulers of Eussia ;
and, although then the First Minister of State in this House, he
did not hesitate to denounce the conduct of the Emperor and
his minister as false and fraudulent.

The noble lord did more. As the session advanced, as the
noble lord's blood grew more warm, in a moment of excite-
ment (it was in the month of July), the noble lord revealed the
secret policy of the profound cabinet of which he was a member
to the House of Commons, and we then obtained the authori-
tative information that war was to be carried on and peace
obtained in no less a manner than by the conquest of provinces,
and the destruction of that stronghold that threw its frowning
shadows over the waters of the Black Sea. The noble lord
made an explanation afterwards of the words he used ; but, as
has been well observed, « Apologies only account for that which
they do not alter.' When the noble lord thus announced the

56 SPEECHES OF THE EAEL OF BEACONSFIELD.

invasion of the Crimea, and the destruction of Sebastopol, I,
for one, said that I had listened to the statement with dismay.
These were the qualifications of the plenipotentiary of peace,
whose selection did so much credit to the judgment of the
First Minister, who, called to power by the enthusiasm of the
people, and determined to put the right man in the right place,
sends a minister to negotiate peace who had proclaimed an
internecine war.

But these were not all the qualifications of the noble lord.
It was not enough that he had distinguished himself by address-
ing inflammatory harangues to the House of Commons. It was
not enough that in a moment of outrageous and fatal indiscretion
he revealed, as one might say, the coming disasters of his
country. It was not enough that he had denounced the conduct
of the Emperor of Russia and his ministers as false and fraudu-
lent. The noble lord signalised himself by another exploit
before he went to make peace for his country. The noble lord
destroyed a cabinet. He tripped up the Prime Minister because
he was not earnest enough in prosecuting the war. These were
the antecedents, these the qualifications of the minister pleni-
potentiary to whom was consigned the fulfilment of the most
important duties that have ever been delegated to a subject of
the Crown since the great Congress of Vienna. This was the
dove sent out to the troubled waters of Europe.

It has been said of the noble lord — I think, very unjustly —
by a high, though anonymous authority, that the noble lord
was not calculated for the post of plenipotentiary : in the first
place, because he was not an eminent diplomatist, and, secondly,
because he did not take that leading position at this moment
in this country which might have compensated for his want of
diplomatic experience in the opinion of the Russian Court. That
was, I think, unjust, because I shall show that the noble lord
has had a great though not lengthened experience of diplomatic
affairs. He was once at the head of the diplomatic body of his
country, and in that capacity performed feats of no mean cha-
racter, which greatly influenced subsequent events, and are at
this moment influencing the fortunes of this country ; and,
although it is quite true that, having held this office, when

PEOSECUTION OF WAR, MAY 1855. 57

the noble lord was called upon by his sovereign to form a
Government he could only find one gentleman to serve under
him, and that gentleman the present First Minister, and
though the noble lord, with his great position and with all his
genius, which I admire, finds himself in this disagreeable pre-
dicament of twice filling a subordinate position in two adminis-
trations which are Whig administrations, still that noble lord
is the leader of the great Whig party — that small company of
great families who ever rule this country, when in power, by
the principles of an oligarchy masked in the language of a
democracy — and therefore the noble lord, whatever office he
may fill, will always be a very considerable man.

Let me, then, call the attention of the House to a great
event in the career of the noble lord — the key-note of the
transactions which occurred when the noble lord was chief of
the diplomacy of the country. The noble lord was Secretary
of State for Foreign Affairs during a brief period in the year
1853 — two or three months — but though the period was brief,
the most important communications which have ever been
made to this country, at any period of its history, were made
when the noble lord was Secretary of State. Upon the noble
lord fell the responsibility of deciding the course of England
when vast events were near us, when a dark destiny was im-
pending over Europe, and when the conduct of the English
ministry might have averted that fate and the consequences of
a great conflict. A whisper was heard, a rumour was spread,
that secret communications ! of a very different character from
those which had been laid upon the table of this House, had
taken place between the Court of St. Petersburg and the Eng-
lish Government. They were denied, not by the Government,
but by those who seemed to have authority to deny them. I
extorted myself from the noble lord the Secretary of State the
admission that those documents existed. Such was the feeling
of Parliament and of the country — though, I admit, I cannot
justify the conduct of any Government in producing those
papers — they were produced, they are on the table, they are

1 I.e, the proposal of the Czar to Sir George Hamilton Seymour that England
should agree to a partition of Turkey, taking Egypt for herself.

58 SPEECHES OF THE EAEL OF BEACOXSFIELD.

among the most precious records of the history of the age ;
and there we learnt, from the lips as it were of the late Em-
peror of Eussia himself, his resolution to accomplish the parti-
tion of Turkey; and that partition was to be accomplished
mainly by assuming rights of a protectorate over the Christian
subjects of the Porte which in the last despatch of the Eus-
sian minister we hear, as a protectorate, never existed.

What was the conduct of the noble lord the chief of the
diplomacy of England under these circumstances ? Observe well
this important phase of those transactions, and you will find, as
I will show you, the key-note of disaster ; you will find it the
cause of the failure of the recent negotiations, and the probable
cause of great difficulties and dangers to this country. The
noble lord, after ample time, wrote a secret and confidential
despatch to Sir George Hamilton Seymour upon the propositions
of the Emperor of Eussia and upon the general tenor of the confi-
dential communications which were then taking place. I must
invite the attention of the First Minister, who admires the
ability of his colleague so much, to these remarks. The noble
lord (Lord John Eussell) wrote a despatch which was much
admired when it first appeared. The despatch was partly his-
torical and partly diplomatic. The noble lord was of opinion
that the Sultan was not in the same state as the Spanish King
in the time of Louis XIV., or the last of the Medici. Certainly
those sovereigns had no children, and the Sultan has as many
wives as the wisest monarch, and so many children that he is
obliged to marry them to his ministers. With all this historical
display, which, while unaccompanied by anything injurious,
reflects great honour upon the country producing such a states-
man, the noble lord proceeded —

4 To these cautions Her Majesty's Government wish to add
that in their view it is essential that the Sultan should be
advised to treat his Christian subjects in conformity with the
principles of equity and religious freedom which prevail gene-
rally among the enlightened nations of Europe. The more the
Turkish Government adopts the rules of impartial law and
equal administration, the less will the Emperor of Eussia find
it necessary to apply that exceptional protection which His

PROSECUTION OF WAR, MAY 1855. 59

Imperial Majesty has found so burdensome and inconvenient,
though no doubt prescribed by duty, and sanctioned by treaty/

Not to taunt the noble lord with an error (though probably
the most gross error ever made by a Secretary of State) ; not to
twit the noble lord with a fatal admission (for everyone gets
into a scrape sometimes, and we who are a popular assembly
know that duties press so upon public men, which they can
only half fulfil, that all sometimes make mistakes ; though a
Secretary of State who in a secret and confidential despatch
makes a mistake is less entitled to the charity of men than
mere individuals), I will remind the House that I called
attention, when that despatch was so much admired, to this
fatal admission. The noble lord never made the slightest
answer. He could not make any answer, and I should never
have brought it forward again but for the remarkable reason I
am about to place before the House, and which the House will
in a moment see is exercising a fatal influence on this country.

The mistake of the noble lord was to acknowledge the pro-
tectorate of Eussia over the Christian subjects of the Porte which
Count Nesselrode has just told us does not exist ; and, not only
to acknowledge, but to tell us 'its exercise is prescribed by duty
and sanctioned by treaty.' When the noble lord told the
House some time ago that everybody knew what the * Four
Points ' were, I took an opportunity of saying, that I, for one,
did not know what the ' Four Points ' were. Up to the moment
the protocols were placed on the table, we never had a formal
and authentic statement of what the * Four Points ' were ; but
at last the papers were laid upon the table, and the ' Four
Points ' are now in the hands of the Parliament of England,
of those honourable gentlemen who will sanction or oppose the
resolution which I am about to submit. Here we have at last
the ' Four Points,' and I beg you to turn to the fourth point,
bearing in mind the noble lord's famous historical despatch,
and the interpretation which he put upon the treaties of
Kainardji and others, acknowledging a protectorate and declaring
its exercise to be not only legal but obligatory. What do
we see in the fourth article of the Conference of Vienna ? Re-
member this article has been produced by the prolonged

60 SPEECHES OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD.

thought, the deep meditation, the unrivalled learning, of the
greatest statesmen of Europe. Here is the summary of what
they believe to be the cause of the most important event of
the present day.

'Kussia in renouncing the pretension to take under an
official protectorate the Christian subjects of the Sultan of the
Oriental ritual, equally renounces, as a natural consequence,
the revival of any of the articles of her former treaties, and
especially of the treaty of Koutchouk Kainardji, the erroneous
interpretation of which has been the principal cause of the
present war.'

By whom was that erroneous interpretation made ? Was it by
the noble lord, or by the Emperor of Kussia ? If by the Em-
peror of Eussia, it was assented to by the minister of England.
What right have we to interfere in this quarrel when the
united wisdom of all these statesmen has found out that l the
erroneous interpretation of the treaty of Kainardji has been
the principal cause of the war ' — and the erroneous interpreter
is sitting before me. And the very statesman who lashed on
the passions of this country to war, when we had a springtide
of national feeling in our favour which might have been directed
to great ends, is sent by the First Minister as plenipotentiary
of peace to the Conference of Vienna ? But we are only at the
commencement of the extraordinary mistakes, the fatal ad-
missions, the disgraceful demeanour of that noble lord who
displayed, we are told, consummate ability, though unsuccessful.
Why did you not give us an opportunity of examining the
conduct of your unsuccessful Plenipotentiary ? Why did you
not move an Address to the Crown, congratulating Her Majesty
on the admirable manner in which the negotiations have been
carried on, while at the same time expressing a determination
to prosecute the war with vigour ? I am not at all surprised
that you have avoided discussion. There have been before now
unsuccessful negotiations and unsuccessful negotiators ; but it
is equally true that ministers have been overthrown and
branded by the verdict of an indignant Parliament for having
acted and for having spoken in a manner similar to that which
has been done and said by the noble lord. The right honour-

PROSECUTION OF WAR, MAY 1855. 61

able gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty laughs : it is
not the first time I have been met with a laugh by the right
honourable gentleman. He is a merry soul ; but if he can
answer what I am saying, let him do so. The noble lord arrived
at Vienna early in March, and the first Conference, I think, was
held on March 15. At first everything went on swimmingly,
and subjects were discussed and settled about which in reality
no difference of opinion existed, and then an admirable oppor-
tunity was afforded to the Eussian envoys of making concilia-
tory sacrifices.

The Conference went on from March 15 to the 26th of that
month, and then commenced the real business. Five or six
meetings of the Conference had taken place, at which, as I
have said, nothing of the slightest importance was settled —
in fact, all that was settled might just as well have been
settled by the post. There was no controversy about the first
or second point, but at last, on March 26, the real difficulty
arose ; then was made apparent the real reason why the noble
lord was sent to take part in the Conferences. Then came
the discussion of the third point, and then it was that the
noble lord was expected, among others, to obtain the admis-
sion of the Turkish empire into the European confederation,
and to decide upon the manner in which the preponderance of
Eussia in the Black Sea should cease to exist. Then com-
menced the real business of the Conference ; but the noble lord
before he touched upon the real point — remembering the mis-
sion of his life as much as his mission to Vienna — threw in
a word with regard to representative Government for the
Principalities, and, 1 believe, even hinted at something like a
new Eeform Bill for these countries. Prince Gortschakoff smiled,
and naturally replied that that was not exactly the point that
they had met to settle ; and he hinted that a new Eeform Bill
for the Danubian Principalities might be postponed, as a new
Eeform Bill for a more important place had been postponed,
and that it might be as well to get on a little with the real
business of the meeting. The noble lord then rose and made
the following unprecedented declaration, in reference to a very
commonplace statement of Prince Gortschakoff at the commence-

62 SPEECHES OF THE EAEL OF BEACONSFIELD.

ment of negotiations, and which was not referred to while
the Conference was engaged on those articles which produced
no controversy : —

4 Lord John Eussell, recalling the declaration made by Prince
Gortschakoff at the opening of negotiations, that he would
consent to no condition incompatible with the honour of Kussia,
maintained that, in the eyes of England and of her allies, the
best and only admissible conditions of peace would be those
which, being the most in harmony with the honour of Kussia,
should at the same time be sufficient for the security of Europe
and for preventing a return of complications such as that the
settlement of which is now in question.'

Let us see to what that admission led. The noble lord
states that, in the eyes of Europe and the allies, the only
admissible conditions of peace were those most in harmony
with the honour of Kussia. What, I want to know, had the
noble lord to do with the honour of Russia ? I apprehend that
the noble lord was not sent to Vienna to take care of the
honour of Kussia. No, Sir, the noble lord was sent to Vienna
to take care of the honour of England. What happened under
these circumstances ? At that time — I am stating what I
admit does not appear formally on the protocols, but I am
stating what no well-informed person will for one moment con-
tradict, and which is matter of general notoriety — at that time
there did exist an understanding to which Kussia was not, I
believe, bound by any formal instrument, but still an under-
standing did exist, that the Russian plenipotentiary, Prince
Grortschakoff, and M. de Titoff, should take the initiative, and
offer a plan which might lead to a satisfactory solution of the
question how the preponderance of the power of Russia in the
Black Sea might be made to cease. I do not think that the
noble lord will deny that, although the Russian ministers were
not bound by the understanding, still their feeling had been
felt upon the subject, and it was clearly understood that they
should take the initiative and propose some plan which they
believed would afford a satisfactory solution to the difficulty —
the preponderance of Russia in the Black Sea.

No sooner, however, had the noble lord made the declara-

PEOSECUTION OF WAE, MAY 1865. 63

tion that, in the eyes of Europe and the allies, the best and,
indeed, only admissible terms of peace were * those which should
be most in harmony with the honour and dignity of Kussia,'
than —

* Prince Gortschakoff, while congratulating himself on the
conciliatory disposition with which the question had been
hitherto touched upon in the Conference, said that he was pre-
pared to discuss the means of execution which should be pro-
posed by the plenipotentiaries, and that he did not consider
himself in a position in which he ought to take the initiative
on this subject.'

(Lord J. Kussell : As Count Buol had suggested.

Mr. Disraeli : I did not say * as the noble lord had sugges-
ted.' I would not misrepresent the noble lord, but anyone who
thinks the correction of the noble lord makes any difference in
my argument is entirely mistaken.)

* As Count Buol had suggested. Appreciating at the same
time the sentiments of courtesy and conciliation which, accord-
ing to the unanimous language he had just heard, seemed to
have inspired this proposition, he declared himself ready to take
it ad referendum, reserving to himself to make known to the
Conference the answer which he should receive from his Court.'

M. de Titoff spoke to a similar purport. Aarif Effendi, how-
ever, who appears to have been the only man of sense present —

' While declaring that he was not authorised to take the
initiative in propositions relating to the third point, expressed
a hope that his Government would accede to those which the
plenipotentiaries of France and of Great Britain have reserved
to themselves to make on this subject.'

Instead of taking the initiative, Prince Gortschakoff imme-
diately referred to his Court, using those bland expressions
which, of course, induced the minister of England and the other
ministers to believe that he was only going to refer to his
Court for fresh powers to make those proposals which it was
expected he would make. Well, Sir, delay after delay occurred,
and it was not until April 17 — the admission of the noble lord
having been made on March 26 that, in the eyes of the allies,
the best and only admissible conditions of peace were those

64 SPEECHES OF THE EAKL OF BEACONSFIELD.

most in harmony with the honour of Eussia — that Prince Gort-
schakoff received his instructions from St. Petersburg. What
were these instructions, or rather what was the result of them ?
On April 17, Prince Gortschakoff at the Conference of that date
said : —

' That his Court, though fully appreciating the reasons which
had prompted the members of the conference to surrender to
the cabinet of St. Petersburg the initiative of the proposals
respecting the third point, did not feel it incumbent on itself
to take the initiative which had been offered to it — '

And must now beg the allies to take the initiative, feeling
of course confident that what the allies had laid down by the
mouth of the noble lord, ' that the best and only admissible
conditions of peace would be those which were in harmony with
the honour of Eussia,' must be conceived in a spirit much more
agreeable to Eussia than Eussia herself could possibly devise.
Is there a doubt about it ? To prove that such was the case,
let me refer to the recent circular note of Count Nesselrode,
and let me see how that most experienced of living statesmen
treats this subject. That statesman has produced a diplomatic
paper of great ability, in which he takes a survey of the transac-
tions at the Vienna Conference and examines with critical eye
the conduct of European statesmen : and on whose conduct did
he fix ? Upon that of the English minister, and more espe-
cially upon the fatal admission of March 26. Count Nesselrode
refers to what he terms la definition fort remarquable of the
noble lord which was to serve as a solution of the problem, and
in that circular note he says : —

1 Lord John Eussell, recalling the declaration made at the
opening of the negotiation by Prince GortschakofF, that he
would consent to no condition incompatible with the honour of
Eussia, maintained that, in the eyes of England and her allies,
the best and only admissible conditions of peace would be those
which, being the most in harmony with the honour of Eussia,
should at the same time be sufficient for the security of Europe,
and for preventing a return of complications such as that the set-
tlement of which is now in question. After this declaration, made
formally in the Conference of March 26, Lord John Eussell,

PKOSECUTION OF WAK, MAY 1855. 65

cannot be surprised that the propositions made on April 19
were not judged by the Imperial cabinet as " the best and only
admissible ones," to quote the English plenipotentiary.'

And what were the propositions made by the noble lord ?
I have already told the House of great feats of history and
diplomacy in connection with that celebrated despatch to which
I have already referred, and here the noble lord fully sustains
the character and position he had exhibited in connection with
that famous despatch. At the commencement of the proceedings
he made as fatal an omission as he had made in his despatch
respecting the protectorate, and the noble lord supported his
position by an historical illustration equally infelicitous but
much more insulting. Here is the noble lord uselessly going
out of his way to announce that the best and only possible con-
ditions of peace in the opinion of England were those most
compatible with the honour of Kussia and at the same time
sufficient for the security of Europe. Having made that ad-
mission, the noble lord proceeds on April 17 to do — what?
To propose the most humiliating condition that could be made
to any Grovernment, and that humiliating condition he sup-
ported by a precedent which appears to me the most unhappy
that could possibly have been brought forward. The noble
lord appeals to the treaty of Utrecht and the destruction of the
fortifications of Dunkirk. Now, under what circumstances were
the treaty of Utrecht and the negotiations for the destruction
of the fortifications of Dunkirk made ? After a series of splendid
victories achieved by the arms of Marlborough and Eugene ;
after a series of the most humiliating reverses on the part of a
once great king ; at the end of a long reign, when her resources
were exhausted, France — high-spirited France — submitted to
the greatest humiliation that her history records. And this is
the precedent which is produced by the noble lord who com
mences with an admission which makes the honour of Eussia
an essential qualification in any condition of peace that may be
made. I ask again, who made the noble lord the judge of the
honour of Kussia ? What business had he to think of the
honour of Eussia ? The noble lord had to think of the honour
and interests of his own country ; and surely Prince Gortscha-

VOL. II. F

66 SPEECHES OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD.

koff and M. de Titoff were capable enough of attending to the
honour of Eussia. The admission made by the noble lord was
the real cause of these Conferences being broken off. That I
consider a very minor evil, according to my view of the nature
and character of the conferences ; but that admission was such
as may embarrass this country and involve it in a position
from which it will require all the patriotism of this House and
the high spirit of this country to extricate it. The noble lord
himself confessed that the admission he had made was the cause
of the rupture of the negotiations. That is actually the ad-
mission of the noble lord at the time when he professes his regret
at Russia not taking the initiative. On April 17, after the
extraordinary illustration to which I have referred had been
repudiated by Prince Grortschakoff, he himself adds : —

' Since the Court of Russia has declined, the chances of
success attending the negotiations for peace appeared in his
eyes much diminished.'

It was therefore in consequence of the noble lord's conduct,
by his own avowal, that the chances of peace were much dimin-
ished. I say, therefore, that the noble lord has placed the pos-
sibility of peace by negotiation almost out of the question by
his conduct at the Conferences at Vienna. The noble lord
allowed the Conference for a considerable period to waste its
energies in settling matters which required no arrangement ;
and when Russia had the appearance of conciliating public
opinion by apparently considerable concessions about nothing
at all — when he had placed Russia in a position to obtain the
favourable opinion of the Congress — the noble lord then came
to the point and so managed the Conference that it appears
that, because Russia would not consent to one single point, we
had in fact been deprived of that peace which otherwise
might have been attained. What a handle does the noble
lord give to any Peace Society or to any doubtful ally when he
allows Russia to say, ' Here are twenty points which we concede,
and the only one point which we insisted on is not conceded by
England, so that the horrors of war are in consequence to con-
tinue.' And what is that one point ? The English minister
proposes that Russia shall consent to that which must in his

PKOSECUTION OF WAE, MAY 1855. 67

opinion be a most humiliating act, because he illustrates it by
a reference to the most humiliating occurrence in the history
of France. Is the noble lord justified in visiting Kussia with
this humiliation after he has laid it down as a principle of
negotiation that she ' is not to be humiliated ' ? I say, then,
that the third point, according to all rules of diplomacy, inas-
much as it contained the real business of the question, ought
to have been taken first. If the negotiators had met and said,
* We all know that the difficulty is in the third point ; let us
solve that difficulty, and if we solve it, all the rest is plain
sailing,' that would have been a wise and intelligible proceed-
ing. But you carried on your negotiations day after day with
dissimulating courtesy, and because you put off to the last the
real business, that dissimulating courtesy becomes a source of
increased irritation.

Under these circumstances I cannot look at the conduct of
the noble lord as Her Majesty's plenipotentiary at Vienna with
that satisfaction with which it has been spoken of by the First
Minister. I think I have shown to the House some reason to
hesitate before they agree that the noble lord has shown great
ability in these negotiations. I think the noble lord, instead
of showing great ability in the conduct of these negotiations,
has committed every blunder which a negotiator could possibly
accomplish. I think he made fatal admissions at the commence-
ment, and that he had recourse to dangerous illustrations to
support his position. I think he dealt with the wrong part of
his material first, and that he has so managed the really im-
portant element that, so far as negotiation is concerned, it is
my solemn opinion diplomacy can no longer solve the knot.
The noble lord has proceeded in these Conferences at Vienna in
the same manner in which he proceeded as Secretary of State
for Foreign Affairs with reference to the confidential communi-
cations of Kussia. He met them by a diplomatic and historical
move conjoined ; and, guided by history, he has made a diplo-
matic mistake.

Sir, at last the protocols so anxiously looked for and so long
sought were laid upon the table. The First Minister declined
to address the Queen. We read those protocols ; and the lan-

F 2

68 SPEECHES OF THE EAEL OF BEACONSFIELD.

guage of the plenipotentiary seemed to be as ambiguous as his
conduct was uncertain in the conduct of the negotiations, for
exactly opposite conclusions were drawn by different parties in
the House. The member for Manchester says the negotiations
authorised peace ; this is also the opinion of the member for
Carlisle and his friends. Another party thinks they necessarily
conclude in war. We are therefore extremely anxious to obtain
the opinion of the ministry upon the question, so that the
country, in a state of great perplexity and some discontent, may
be guided in their opinion by Her Majesty's Government. What
is the position of the country ? Is there to be peace, or is there
to be war ? Do you wish that there should be peace, or that
there should be war ? On what conditions do you wish to have
peace ? In what spirit are you going to carry on war ? We
do not ask the noble lord to let us know the precise and actual
conditions on which peace ought to be obtained, as the noble
lord the other night, with his usual happy power of perversion,
seemed to represent ; no man is so silly as to entertain such an
idea. We know well that we must trust to the discretion of the
Government in such matters, and especially as we are connected
with an ally whom we love and respect. But what we want
from Her Majesty's ministers is some general, though explicit,
statement as to our position ; and it is my object to-night to
obtain it.

It is my object to do more than that : it is my object to show
what is the cause of this perplexity ; to show Her Majesty's
ministers how ambiguous has been their language, and how
much more ambiguous has been the conduct of their nego-
tiations, in first stating the honour of Eussia to be an element
of the conditions of peace and then proposing conditions of
peace which the strongest advocates of war could not suppose
in the present state of affairs Russia would accept. Is not that
ambiguity of language and uncertainty of conduct ? If the
noble lord was sincere when he said that, above all, the honour
of Russia was to be one of the principal elements of the con-
ditions of peace, his language in my opinion was feeble and
incautious. If the noble lord was not sincere, and did not
mean what he said, then I think his language is liable to the

PROSECUTION OF WAR, MAY 1855. 69

charge implicitly made against it by Count Nesselrode — that of
duplicity. The noble lord must choose between those two
qualities.

Well, the protocols being here, the First Minister of the
Crown not fulfilling his duty by moving an Address to the
Sovereign in respect to them, and a right honourable gentle-
man, who attempts to do that, giving notice of a motion which
is suppressed, we, the members of this House, endeavour to
extract some opinion from the Government; and what is the
answer we receive ? I am told that there have been no ambi-
guity of language and no uncertainty of conduct. Now, this is
a grave question, and we must fully and completely enter into it.
Therefore, let me call the attention of the House to the words of
the First Minister of the Crown recently delivered. He said : —

* With respect to the question whether negotiations are
entirely broken off, my answer must be the same as I gave on
a former evening — namely, that the elements of Conference per-
manently exist at Vienna, there being in that capital represen-
tatives of the British, French, Russian, Turkish, and of course
Austrian Governments. If, therefore, at any time any proposi-
tion should be made by Russia, or by Austria on behalf of
Russia, which might appear to offer a fair prospect of negotia-
tions being prosecuted to a successful issue, there are means
and elements in Vienna for resuming the negotiations.'

Is it not quite clear that there are in every capital in Europe
almost, the representatives of the British, French, Turkish,
Russian and Austrian Governments ? And therefore, if at any
time, propositions should be contemplated, they could be made
in any European capital. But there is no proof whatever of any
special negotiations going on, or of any reason why we should not
investigate the conduct of Her Majesty's Government and give
our opinion upon these records of our unsuccessful plenipoten-
tiary. What was the language used in another place by another
minister (Lord Granville) on May 22 ? That noble lord said : —

* With regard to the question which has been put by the
noble and learned lord, my noble friend (Earl Grey), as a spec-
tator of the scene which has been described as having taken
place in the other House, would be able to give almost as ample

70 SPEECHES OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD.

an answer as I can give myself. With regard to the state of
negotiations at Vienna, it is not true as has been stated, that
they have been finally closed. The Government are ready to
receive any propositions that may lead to a safe and honourable
peace, and they also leave themselves open to decline any terms
which may lead to a contrary result. Certainly the Conferences
are not closed, and under the circumstances of the case it is
for the noble earl himself to consider what course he ought to
adopt.'

I gave my comment on the language of the First Minister
about a week ago, and I will now communicate to the House
the comment of Lord Lyndhurst on the language of Lord
Granville, for the purpose of showing that I do not stand alone
in the opinion that the language of the Government is vague
and ambiguous. Lord Lyndhurst said : —

' The noble lord says the negotiations are not closed ; but
are they going on ? They may remain open for a twelve-
month. Have any propositions been made which are still under
consideration, or have they been rejected ? Is there any pro-
bability of any further propositions being made, and if so, within
what time ? Or have the Government made up their minds
as to the period at which there is any probability of the Con-
ferences being concluded ? I never heard anything more
vague.'

Are we, then, with these statements made in this and the
other House of Parliament, to be told that there is nothing
vague, uncertain, or ambiguous in the language and conduct
of ministers in reference to the great question of peace or war ?
Let me now recall your attention to a statement made by the
noble lord opposite (Lord J. Russell), the unsuccessful negotiator,
totally contrary to everything said by both his colleagues in the
passages I have just quoted. On May 21 the noble lord said : —

* Certainly my opinion is that, whether the propositions lead
to peace or not — because on that question I feel myself incom-
petent to give an opinion — the Austrian Government will, before
the Conferences are finally closed, make some proposition to the
members of these Conferences. I imagine that proposition must
have one of two results — either it will be rejected by one, pej>

PROSECUTION OF WAE, MAY 1855. 71

haps by both, of the belligerent Powers, and then the Confer-
ences are broken off, and no doubt it will be perfectly competent
for any member of Parliament to ask this House to declare its
opinion of the negotiations ; or on the other hand, if that should
not be the case, then again negotiations will be resumed, and
there will be a greater prospect than there has been of peace
being established.'

That is a totally different statement from the statements
made by the First Minister and by Earl Granville. The latter
tells you that there are representatives of the four Powers in
Vienna (though, as I told you before, they may be found also
in other capitals), and if any proposition is made, it will be
received ; but here the noble lord tells us most positively that
the Austrian Government has some other proposition to make,
and that it is expected by Her Majesty's Government. The
noble lord distinctly stated that one more attempt at negoti-
ation was to be made ; which is quite a different account from
that given by the First Minister and by Lord Granville. Well,
is this the case, and is another attempt to be made ? Th.e
inconsistencies are considerable. Here we have the statement
of the First Minister that there is a permanent condition of
Congress, and then we hear from the noble lord opposite a
statement that there is going to be a final proposition, and then
the Conferences are to be closed. Which is the true statement ?
Is another proposition expected, has it been made, and what are
the general expectations of the Government as to its character ?
But this is not all. I am told that the language of the Govern-
ment on this subject is not ambiguous. Why, what did Lord
Clarendon, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, say? The noble
lord opposite having returned from his unsuccessful mission,
Lord Clarendon said that he should lay before Parliament the
official papers as soon as possible, and went on to say that, for
his part, he very much disapproved Conferences or negotiations
being carried on where there was no real business to conclude :
that, he said, was the present state of things, though the
Government would be prepared to answer any distinct proposi-
tion on the part of Eussia. That was a very proper tone to
take, but it was totally different from the ambiguous language

72 SPEECHES OF THE EAKL OF BEACONSFIELD.

held by other ministers, which had something in it like ' leaving
the door open,' which I do not understand. I am against this
principle of ' leaving the door open ; ' I say, shut the door, and
let those who want to come in, knock at the door, and then let
us endeavour to secure a safe and honourable peace.

Then, Sir, arrived the night for the motion of the member
for Manchester, to which I need not now advert, as I have
before alluded to it, and I refer to it only to notice the strange
position taken up by the First Minister of the Crown on that
occasion. That noble lord told us that he was not going to
make an ignominious peace ; and that the man who would do
so would be a degraded outcast. I admired the tone of the
noble lord. ' The captain is a brave man,' but we want some-
thing more than the assertion of the noble lord as to whether
he is going to make an ignominious peace or not. The noble
lord can advise the Crown to make peace without first asking
this House. Let us, therefore, be well acquainted with the real
character of his policy before he makes peace, and let us, above
all, have a clear and explicit explanation of the real position of
affairs. There is a sarcastic note, which I have no doubt hon-
ourable gentlemen will recollect in one of Mr. (ribbon's volumes
in which he quotes an Arabic author named Abu-raaf, who
stated that he was witness of a certain marvellous incident.
But who, asks Mr. Gibbon, will be witness for Abu-raaf? The
noble lord says he is not going to make an ignominious peace.
The noble lord is witness for himself, but who will be witness
for the noble lord ? It is in the power of the minister to advise
the Crown to make peace without asking the opinion of Parlia-
ment. Far be it from me to interfere with the prerogative oJ
the Crown ; but what other safeguard is there, when Parliament
has adjourned, against an unwise exercise of that prerogative
but a discussion in Parliament on the state of affairs by which
we may become well acquainted with the feelings and views oi
ministers ?

The noble lord the other night said he would not be forced
by me into making the House acquainted with the confidential
communications which were passing between Her Majesty's
Government and our allies ; but no one asks the noble lord on

PROSECUTION OF WAR, MAY 1855. 73

what terms he intends to make peace. It would be the height
of imprudence for any man to ask the noble lord to tell us the
precise terms on which he proposes to make peace. He must
act upon his own responsibility, in conjunction, of course, with our
cherished ally ; but that is no reason why the noble lord should
take a course which, in my opinion, must lead either to an
ignominious peace or a lingering and fruitless war. That is
why I press the noble lord. We have a right, I maintain, with-
ut trenching on the prerogative of the Crown, and without cir-
urnscribing the Government's liberty of action along with our
ally, to interfere if we think that the noble lord and his col-
leagues are pursuing a course of policy which must either lead to
the conclusion of an unsatisfactory peace, or else, which I think
even more probable, to a lingering, fruitless and inglorious war.
The noble lord told me the other night that, while I was
objecting to the negotiations which were going on, I seemed to
forget altogether the fact that the Government at the same
time were carrying on war — effectively carrying it on ; and he
insisted on this point with great vigour, apparently very much
his own satisfaction. Now, there I join issue altogether with
he noble lord. I deny that you can carry on war effectively
with this chronic state of negotiation.

Here, I think, lies the whole fallacy of the noble lord's
policy. The cause of all the ill- success which has attended
his efforts, and of the discontent and dissatisfaction which is
now so prevalent in the country, may be traced to the principle
on which the noble lord and the Government which preceded
him, of which he was a member, have acted — that it is pos-
sible at the same time to make war and to negotiate for peace.
It is pretty apparent, I think, that the noble lord has a false
and limited idea of the manner of making war. I deny that
all you have to do in order to make war is to levy taxes and to
fit out expeditions. There is something else equally and per-
haps I might say, though it may seem extravagant, more im-
portant even than raising money and recruiting troops. If you
want to carry on war with vigour and efficiency, you must keep
up the spirit of the people. Now, Sir, I deny that you can
keep up the spirit of the nation in a struggle such as that

74 SPEECHES OF THE EAEL OF BEACONSFIELD.

which we carried on with Napoleon, and such as that which we
may have to carry on with the Emperor of Eussia, if you are
perpetually impressing on the country that peace is impending,
and if you are perpetually showing the people that the point
of difference between ourselves and our opponents is, after all,
comparatively speaking, of a petty character. Men will endure
great sacrifices if they think they are encountering an enemy
of colossal power and resources. A nation will not count the
sacrifices which it makes, if it supposes that it is engaged in a
struggle for its fame, its influence and its existence. But when
you come to a doubled and tripled income-tax ; when you come
to draw men away from their homes for military service ; when
you darken the hearths of England with ensanguined calami-
ties— when you do all this, men must not be told that this is
merely a question whether the Emperor of Russia shall have
four frigates or eight. I say, the principle upon which the
Government of the noble lord and the Government which pre-
ceded him have acted — that of keeping up a state of war and
a state of negotiation simultaneously in action — is a fatal
principle, and that to it may be traced the real cause of our
disappointment and partly of our disaster. What effect has it had
upon your militia ? Why, I remember when the militia was
first embodied there was aroused, even in the humblest cottage,
that military spirit which, I think, is natural to the British
people, but which had certainly not been shown for half a
century. But what is the feeling now ? The people under-
stand the question now ; they have read of the Conferences of
Vienna ; they believe that, after all, the differences between
the parties is no very great one — that it is not a difference for
which their blood should be lavished, or for which the country
should appeal to their patriotism. Is there a murmur against
increased taxation in the country ? Do you think you would
ever have heard a murmur against increased taxation if, at
the same time you were calling for these increased sacrifices,
you had not striven to impress on the public mind that you
were not engaged in a struggle for an object worthy of the
sacrifice ?

Moreover, if you would carry on war effectively, it is neces-

PKOSECUTION OF WAR, MAY 1855. 75

sary, not merely to keep up the spirit of the nation, but also to
keep up the spirit of foreign Powers. You may rest assured
that so long as you appeal to a foreign Power as a mediator,
that foreign Power will never be your ally. I do not say this
with any want of respect for Austria. I think that the Court
of Vienna has acted throughout these transactions with wisdom,
with sagacity, and with prudence, and I am not surprised that
its councils have been guided with so great ability when I
remember that the minister of that country is a pupil of the
greatest statesman that this age has produced. The genius of
Letternich still guides the country which he has more than
)nce saved ; and if the policy of that great statesman be pur-
sued, I am persuaded that in a struggle with Eussia he is not
the man, nor are those who have sat at his feet the men, to
counsel base humiliation for that Power. If in 1828 the opinion
of Prince Metternich had prevailed — if the policy which he
recommended had been adopted by the English Cabinet — this
House in all probability would not at this moment have been
called upon to discuss the all-important question of a war with
Eussia. Therefore, it was with no disrespect to Austria that I
lade that remark : it is in human nature that the moment you
ask a person to occupy the position of a mediator, he will neces-
sarily not fulfil the duties of an ally.

I say, then, Sir, that so far as the general policy of the
noble lord is concerned, I trace its want of energy and its un-
fortunate consequences — I trace the discontent and the dis-
satisfaction which are prevalent in all quarters — to this continued
alliance between diplomacy and war. As a general principle I
think that alliance objectionable ; but in the present case I
think I can show the House that there are peculiar objections
to this double service ; that there are peculiar reasons why, if
now followed, it must, I believe in my conscience, lead to great
public disaster. There are two modes in which you may make
war on Eussia: in one case you may invade her provinces,
despoil her of her territories, push her back to the north — re-
construct, in short, the map of Europe, and solve the knot you
are now trying to untie, by the rudest and most determined
means. If there were a young minister, full of genius and

76 SPEECHES OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD .

energy, backed by the enthusiasm of a people, unembarrassed
by any public debt, and fortunate enough to possess as a col-
league a general as young, as energetic, and as able as himself,
I do not say that that is not a career which I should recommend
to his attention ; I do not presume to predict what the result of
such a struggle would be ; but I think few will deny that the
hair of the youngest member present might grow grey before
its termination.

There is another mode of waging war with Russia, an essen-
tially protective mode. In adopting that mode, your object
would be to protect your ally, to take care that his territory
should not be violated, that his fortresses should be secure, and
to check the preponderance of Eussia in every quarter, not so
much by reducing the influence of Russia as by increasing the
power of Turkey. That was the war in which, from your de-
claration at its commencement, I thought we had embarked ; but
what have you done ? Having embarked on a war to protect the
Turkish Empire, you suddenly resolved to invade the Russian
dominions, and all this time you were engaged in diplomatic
transactions which were to carry out a protective policy. You
have thus combined, therefore, an aggressive war with a pro-
tective diplomacy ; and to this incoherent, inconsistent union I
trace and attribute the dangers which are surrounding us, and
which in my opinion, unless we terminate that union, must
increase until they perhaps overwhelm you. A Conference in
Vienna may cope with such questions as the government of
Danubian Principalities, as the course and free navigation of a
river, or the rights of the Christian subjects of the Porte. But
Conferences at Vienna cannot cope with such subjects as the
invasion of Russian provinces, the destruction of Russian fort-
resses, or the fortunes of accumulated hosts on the impatient
territory of a proud foe. Wasting your time at Vienna in this
protective diplomacy, all that you can do is to devise schemes
which will apply to the objects of protective war. But the evil
consequences upon the objects of aggressive war are daily trace-
able, because by this chronic diplomacy you not only check and
destroy the spirit of the nation upon which, after all, you must
rely, but by those very Conferences you are paralysing your

PKOSECUTION OF WAR, MAY 1855. 77

allies and preventing that energy and exertion on the part of
the European Powers which may be necessary to enable you to
carry on your aggressive warfare and to extricate you from the
dangers which you must meet. Sir, it may have been a great
error, as I frankly confess I believe it has been, to depart from
the protection of the Turkish empire to undertake the invasion
}f Eussia, which you most rashly and, as I think, thought-
issly decided upon ; but having once entered upon that course,
must now meet the consequences of the policy you have
rarsued, and you cannot extricate yourselves from those eon-
sequences by Vienna Conferences. You will only increase your
difficulties and augment your dangers if you trust to diplomacy.
Your position is one that is entirely deceptive ; and you never
can carry on an aggressive war with success unless, on the one
hand, you are supported by an enthusiastic people, and unless,
on the other, you can count upon allies who know that you
are determined to be victorious.

I have said, Sir, that there was at least one object in my
making this motion, not a solitary, but a main object — namely,
that I want the House of Commons by its vote to-night — I
want even those most favourable to peace, provided, I suppose,
that it is made upon honourable terms, and is likely to be per-
manent— for I trust that no honourable member would advocate
any other kind of peace — I want this House by its decision to
put an end to that vicious double system by which we have so
long carried on an aggressive war and a protective diplomacy.
I want the House of Commons to-night to say in distinct
language that the time for negotiations has passed. No man,
I think, will be inclined to deny that proposition who has read
Count Nesselrode's circular. If negotiations could bring us an
honourable peace and extricate the country from the dangers
that surround it; if I thought there was even a chance of
obtaining such results by means of negotiation, I might still
have the weakness to cling to it ; but I am convinced that
further negotiations, instead of securing peace, will only aggra-
vate the dangers and distresses of war. I am confident that, if
negotiations are continued, the Government may be prevented,
indeed, from making a disgraceful peace by the still latent

78 SPEECHES OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD.

spirit of England ; but the Government, if it persists in its
present policy, will only substitute for such a peace a lingering,
fruitless and inglorious war. I ask the House, therefore, to
support this motion, because one of its main objects is to put
an end to this fatal union between diplomacy and aggressive
war.

Sir, it has been said that the motion which I am about to
make expresses distrust in Her Majesty's Government. Be it
so. Is there any man out of this House that does not feel dis-
trust in Her Majesty's Government ? I beg the noble lord to
understand that I do not say this by way of taunt. I know full
well, and it is a most sorrowful thing, that this distrust is not
limited to Her Majesty's Government, and that it has been
occasioned by the policy of the country for the last two years.
That distrust reaches our generals, although they are victorious ;
it reaches our officers, although during the war they have
achieved deeds of unprecedented valour, and maintained among
their troops unexampled discipline ; it reaches our aristocracy,
although they have poured out their blood like water in the
conflict ; lastly — and this is the worst of all among the dark sus-
picions that have, alas ! been rife — that distrust has reached
even the practical workings of our representative institutions.
And will you, then, hesitate to support me to-night in this the
first effort to breathe some feeling of life into this House, in
the dangerous circumstances in which, believe me, the House
of Commons is placed ? Further forbearance on our part can-
not be submitted to by our constituents. I speak frankly. I
say that silence is by them considered to be an abrogation of our
functions. You must say ' Aye ' or i No ' to the motion I am
about to propose. I cannot believe that you will allow any
miserable amendments to evade the issue which I am about to
place before the House of Commons. That issue, is this :
' Will you put an end to this diplomatic subterfuge and this
ministerial trifling ? ' It is a simple issue, and it will be so
looked upon, I believe, here and elsewhere. I am told that I
am to be met by an amendment. I find Sir, that a right
honourable gentleman has done me the honour of adopting five
lines of my composition. The right honourable gentleman.

PKOSECUTION OF WAE, MAY 1855. 79

(Sir F. Baring) is a miles emeritus in the great struggles of
political life. I must congratulate the present ministry upon
its good fortune in always having a Privy Councillor to rush to
its aid ; and certainly it ought to be a wise Government that
has so many amateur and veteran colleagues. I read that Sir
F. Baring is to move an amendment to my motion in these
terms : —

* That this House, having seen with regret that the Con-
ferences of Vienna have not led to a termination of hostilities,
feels it to be a duty to declare that it will continue to give
every support to Her Majesty in the prosecution of the war,
until Her Majesty shall, in cpnjunction with her allies, obtain
for the country a safe and honourable peace.'

The latter portion of this amendment is taken from the words
of my motion. Is this amendment which Sir Francis Baring is
to move the amendment of the ministry ? If it is their amend-
ment, it is an act on their part which vindicates to a certain
degree the course I have taken, and in every sense condemns
themselves. If the noble lord and his colleagues think that
this House ought in the present state of affairs, in consequence
of the failure of these negotiations, to express their determina-
tion to support Her Majesty in the manner I have described, how
can the noble lord reconcile it to himself that he did not him-
self, like a loyal minister of the Crown, come forward and pro-
pose an address, thanking Her Majesty for the [papers which
she has so graciously placed upon the table. I can hardly recall
the passage, but I remember reading of an example in the
history of this country which the noble lord the First Minister
might well study in regard to communications of this nature
proceeding from the sovereign. It is to be found in Cox's
* Life of Sir Robert Walpole,' where it is stated that the Duke
of Newcastle, then Secretary of State, brought down papers
relative to the threatened invasion of England, and laid them
on the table of the House by Eoyal command. In consequence
of some papers on the same subject having been previously laid
on the table, and the Crown having been addressed with regard
to them, the Duke of Newcastle said that it would not be
necessary a second time to address the sovereign. I can

80 SPEECHES OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD.

remember the spirit if I cannot repeat the words of Sir Robert
Walpole on that occasion, when he made the only speech he ever
delivered as Earl of Orford : — 'My Lords,' I think he said, 'is
the English language so barren that we cannot find words to
express our gratitude to His Majesty for every act of grace and
condescension to this assembly?' And, continuing in this
strain of flowing and indignant eloquence, he so shamed the
ministry that, although the Grovernment party had a great
majority in the House of Peers, that august assembly rose
almost in a body and decided that it should address the
monarch, while the Prince of Wales, who was then in Opposi-
tion, although he had not for ^ome time been on speaking
terms with the Earl of Orford, crossed the House, and warmly
embracing that nobleman, exclaimed, ' From this moment we
are friends. I feel that you have vindicated the honour of the
Crown, and represented the feeling of the country.' Well,
then, here is the amendment of the right honourable gentle-
man. Is it the amendment of the Grovernment ? Will they
have courage to support the amendment ? If they have, it is
possible they may yet take Sebastopol, for a more audacious
act was never perpetrated by any minister. It is not : it
cannot be. It is an amateur performance. I make this
remark with regard, not to this amendment only, but also to
some others of which I have heard. I wish to impress upon
the House the difference between my motion and the shabby
amendment that has been cribbed from my thoughts and clothed
in my stolen language. What is the difference between them ?
It is this — both the motion and the amendment contain the
assurance which I am sure honourable gentlemen on all sides
will feel it their duty to proffer to the Crown of their determina-
tion to support Her Majesty in the war in which we are
engaged ; but in the amendment there is an omission of those
words which, if they be adopted, will ring through England to-
morrow, and will gladden the heart of many a patriot who is
now discontented, but who will rejoice when he finds that the
House of Commons have come to the issue I have just described
and have decided by their vote to night that there shall be an
end to diplomatic subterfuge and ministerial trifling.

81

VOTE OF CENSURE— DENMARK AND GERMANY.
July 4, 1864.1

[On July 23, 1863, the last night of the session, Lord Palmerston
said that if the independence, the integrity, and the rights of
Denmark were assailed, ' those who . made the attempt would find it
was not Denmark alone with whom they had to contend.' When
Denmark, encouraged by this assurance, appealed to arms, she was
naturally disappointed at not receiving assistance from England. All
our Government could say was that they could not have gone to war
with Germany except in conjunction with France, and that France
had refused. The following speech is intended to show why France
refused. Lord Russell had thrown over the Emperor about Poland,
and this was the natural consequence. The motion for an address to
Her Majesty ' to assure Her Majesty that we have heard with deep
concern that the sittings of that Conference have been brought to a
close without accomplishing the important purposes for which it was
convened ; to express to Her Majesty our great regret that, while the
course pursued by Her Majesty's Government has failed to maintain
their avowed policy of upholding the integrity and independence of Den-
mark, it has lowered the just influence of this country in the councils
of Europe, and thereby diminished the securities for peace,' was defeated
by the small majority of eighteen. On the same night a similar
resolution was carried in the House of Lords by a majority of nine.]

ME. SPEAKEE, — Some of the longest and most disastrous
wars of modern Europe have been wars of succession. The
Thirty Years' War was a war of succession. It arose from a dis-
pute respecting the inheritance of a duchy in the north of
Europe, not very distant from that Duchy of Holstein which
now engages general attention. Sir, there are two causes why
wars originating in disputed succession become usually of a
prolonged and obstinate character. The first is internal dis-

1 This speech is reprinted from Hansard's Delates by permission of Mr.
Hansard.

YOL. II. G

82 SPEECHES OF THE EAEL OF BEACONSFIELD.

cord, and the second foreign ambition. Sometimes a domestic
party, under such circumstances, has an understanding with a
foreign potentate, and, again, the ambition of that foreign
potentate excites the distrust, perhaps the envy, of other
Powers ; and the consequence is, generally speaking, that the
dissensions thus created lead to prolonged and complicated
struggles. Sir, I apprehend — indeed I entertain no doubt —
that it was in contemplation of such circumstances possibly
occurring in our time, that the statesmen of Europe, some
thirteen years ago, knowing that it was probable that the
royal line of Denmark would cease, and that upon the death of
the then king, his dominions would be divided, and in all pro-
bability disputed, gave their best consideration to obviate the
recurrence of such calamities to Europe. Sir, in these days,
fortunately, it is not possible for the Powers of Europe to act
under such circumstances as they would have done a hundred
years ago. Then they would probably have met in secret con-
clave and have decided the arrangement of the internal govern-
ment of an independent kingdom. In our time they said to
the King of Denmark, * If you and your people among your-
selves can make an arrangement in the case of the contingency
of your death without issue, which may put an end to all
internal discord, we at least will do this for you and Denmark —
we will in your lifetime recognise the settlement thus made,
and, so far as the influence of the Great Powers can be exercised,
we will at least relieve you from the other great cause which,
in the case of disputed successions, leads to prolonged wars.
We will save you from foreign interference, foreign ambition,
and foreign aggression.' That, Sir, I believe, is an accurate
account and true description of that celebrated Treaty of May,
1852, of which we have heard so much, and of which some
characters are given which in my opinion are unauthorised and
unfounded.

There can be no doubt that the purpose of that treaty was
one which entitled it to the respect of the communities of
Europe. Its language is simple and expresses its purpose.
The Powers who concluded that treaty announced that they
concluded it, not from their own will or arbitrary impulse, but

VOTE OF CENSURE— DENMARK AND GERMANY, JULY 1864. 83

at the invitation of the Danish Government, in order to give
to the arrangement relative to the succession an additional
pledge of stability by an act of European recognition. If
honourable gentlemen look to that treaty — and I doubt not
that they are familiar with it — they will find the first article
entirely occupied with the recitals of the efforts of the King of
Denmark — and, in his mind, successful efforts — to make the
necessary arrangements with the principal estates and person-
ages of his kingdom, in order to effect the requisite alterations
in the lex regia regulating the order of succession ; and the
article concludes by an invitation and appeal to the Powers of
Europe, by a recognition of that settlement, to preserve his
kingdom from the risk of external danger.

Sir, under that treaty England incurred no legal responsi-
bility which was not equally entered into by France and by
Eussia. If, indeed, I were to dwell on moral obligations —
which I think constitute too dangerous a theme to introduce
into a debate of this kind — but if I were to dwell upon that
topic, I might say that the moral obligations which France, for
example, had incurred to Denmark, were of no ordinary cha-
racter. Denmark had been the ally of France in that severe
struggle which forms the most considerable portion of modern
history, and had proved a most faithful ally. Even at St.
Helena, when contemplating his marvellous career and moral-
ising over the past, the first emperor of the dynasty which now
governs France rendered justice to the complete devotion of
the Kings of Denmark and Saxony, the only sovereigns, he
said, who were faithful under all proof and the extreme of
adversity. On the other hand, if we look to our relations with
Denmark, in her we found a persevering though a gallant foe.
Therefore, so far as moral obligations are concerned, while there
are none which should influence England, there is a great sense
of gratitude which might have influenced the councils of France.
But, looking to the treaty, there is no -legal obligation incurred
by England towards Denmark which is not equally shared by
Kussia and by France.

Now, the question which I would first ask the House is
this : How is it that, under these circumstances, the position

G 2

84 SPEECHES OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD.

of France relative to Denmark is one so free from embarrass-
ment— I might say, so dignified — that she recently received a
tribute to her demeanour and unimpeachable conduct in this
respect from Her Majesty's Secretary of State ; while the
position of England, under the same obligation, contained in
the same treaty, with relation to Denmark, is one, all will admit,
of infinite perplexity, and, I am afraid I must add, terrible
mortification ? That, Sir, is the first question which I will put
to the House, and which, I think, ought to receive a satisfactory
answer, among other questions, to-night. And I think that the
answer that must first occur to everyone — the logical inference
— is that the affairs of this country with respect to our obliga-
tions under the treaty of 1852 must have been very much mis-
managed to have produced consequences so contrary to the
position occupied by another Power equally bound with our-
selves by that treaty.

Sir, this is not the first time, as the House is aware, that
the dominions of the King of Denmark have been occupied by
Austrian and Prussian armies. In the year 1 848, when a great
European insurrection occurred — I call it insurrection to dis-
tinguish it from revolution, for, though its action was very
violent, the ultimate effect was almost nothing — but when the
great European insurrection took place, there was no portion of
Europe more influenced by it than Germany. There is scarcely
a political constitution in Germany that was not changed at that
period, and scarcely a throne that was not subverted. The
King of Denmark, in his character of a sovereign prince of
Germany, was affected by that great movement. The popula-
tion of Germany, under the influence of peculiar excitement at
that time, were impelled to redress the grievances, as they
alleged them to be, of their fellow-countrymen in the dominions
of the King of Denmark who were his subjects. The Duchy
of Holstein and the Duchy of Schleswig were invaded, a civil
war was excited by ambitious princes, and that territory was
ultimately subjected to a decree of that Diet with which now
we have become familiar.

The office was delegated to the Austrian and Prussian armies
to execute that decree, and they occupied, I believe, at one

VOTE OF CENSURE— DENMARK AND GERMANY, JULY 1864. 85

time the whole continental possessions of the King of Denmark.
In 1851 tranquillity had been restored to Europe, and especially
to Germany, and the troops of Austria and Prussia ultimately
quitted the dominions of the King of Denmark. That they
quitted them in consequence of the military prowess of the
Danes, though that was far from inconsiderable, I do not pretend
to say. They quitted the territory, I believe the truth to be,
in consequence of the influence of Bussia, at that time irresis-
tible in Grermany, and deservedly so, because she had interfered
and established tranquillity, and Russia had expressed her
opinion that the German forces should quit the dominions of the
King of Denmark. They quitted the country, however, under
certain conditions. A diplomatic correspondence had taken
place between the King of Denmark and the Courts of Berlin
and Vienna, and the King of Denmark in that correspondence
entered into certain engagements, and those engagements un-
doubtedly were recommended to a certain degree by the wish, if
possible, to remedy the abuses complained of, and also by the
desire to find an honourable excuse for the relinquishment of
his provinces by the Grerman forces. The King of Denmark
never fulfilled the engagements into which he then entered,
partly, I have no doubt, from negligence. We know that it is
not the habit of mankind to perform disagreeable duties when
pressure is withdrawn, but I have no doubt, and I believe the
candid statement to be, that it arose in a great degree from the
impracticable character of the engagements into which he had
entered. That was in the year 1851.

In 1852, tranquillity being then entirely restored, the
Treaty of May, which regulated the succession, was negotiated.
And I may remind honourable members that in that treaty
there is not the slightest reference to these engagements which
the King of Denmark had entered into with the Diet of Ger-
many, or with German Powers who were members of the Diet.
Nevertheless, the consequence of that state of affairs was this,
that though there was no international question respecting
Denmark, and although the possible difficulties which might
occur of an international character had been anticipated by the
treaty of 1852, still in respect to the King of Denmark's ca

86 SPEECHES OF THE EAEL OF BEACONSFIELD.

city as Duke of Holstein and a sovereign German prince, a
controversy arose between him and the Diet of Germany in
consequence of those engagements, expressed in hitherto
private and secret diplomatic correspondence carried on be-
tween him and certain German Courts. The House will under-
stand that this was not an international question ; it did not
affect the public law of Europe ; but it was a municipal, local,
or, as we now call it, a federal question. Notwithstanding that
in reality it related only to the King of Denmark and the Diet
of Germany, in time it attracted the attention of the Govern-
ment of England and of the ministers of the Great Powers,
signataries of the treaty of 1852. For some period after the
treaty of 1852, very little was heard of the federal question
and the controversy between the Diet and the King of Den-
mark. After the exertions and exhaustions of the revolutionary
years, the question slept, but it did not die. Occasionally it
gave signs of vitality ; and as time proceeded, shortly — at least,
not very long— after the accession of the present Government
to office, the controversy between the Diet and the King of
Denmark assumed an appearance of very great life and acri

mony.

Now, Her Majesty's ministers thought it then- duty to in.
terfere in that controversy between the German Diet and the
King of Denmark — a controversy strictly federal and not inter-
national. Whether they were wise in taking that course
appears very doubtful. My own impression is, and always has
been, that it would have been much better to have left the
federal question between the Diet and the King to work itsel
out. Her Majesty's ministers, however, were of opinion— anc
no doubt there is something to be said in favour of that opinioi
—that as the question, although federal, was one which woulc
probably lead to events which would make it international, il
was wiser and better to interfere by anticipation, and prevent
if possible, the federal execution ever taking place. The con
sequence of that extreme activity on the part of Her Majesty's
ministers is a mass of correspondence which has been placed on
the table, and with which, I doubt not, many gentlemen have
some acquaintance, though they may have been more attracte

VOTE OF CENSURE— DENMARK AND GERMANY, JULY 1864. 87

and absorbed by the interest of the more modern correspondence
which has, within the year, been presented to the House. Sir,
I should not be doing justice to the Secretary of State 1 if I did
not bear testimony to the perseverance and extreme ingenuity
with which he conducted that correspondence. The noble lord
the Secretary of State found in that business, no doubt, a
subject genial to his nature — namely, drawing up constitutions
for the government of communities. The noble lord, we know,
is almost as celebrated as a statesman 2 who flourished at the end
of the last century for this peculiar talent. I will not criticise
any of the lucubrations of the noble lord at that time. I think
his labours are well described in a passage in one of the de-
spatches of a distinguished Swedish statesman — the present
Prime Minister, if I am not mistaken — who, when he was called
upon to consider a scheme of the English Government for the
administration of Schleswig, which entered into minute details
with a power and prolixity which could have been acquired only
by a constitutional minister who had long served an apprentice-
ship in the House of Commons, said :

* Generally speaking, the monarchs of Europe have found
it difficult to manage one Parliament, but I observe, to my sur-
prise, that Lord Kussell is of opinion that the King of Den-
mark will be able to manage four.'

The only remark I shall make on this folio volume of
between 300 and 400 pages relating to the affairs of Schleswig
and Holstein is this — I observe that the other Powers of
Europe, who were equally interested in the matter, and equally
bound to interfere — if being signataries to the treaty of 1852
justified interference — did not interpose as the English Govern-
ment did. That they disapproved the course taken by us I by
no means assert. When we make a suggestion on the subject,
they receive it with cold politeness ; they have no objection to
the course we announce we are going to follow, but confine
themselves, with scarcely an exception, to this conduct on their
part. The noble lord acted differently. But it is really un-

1 Earl Eussell.

2 The Abbe Sieyes, I suppose. Lord John Eussell was the framer of six
Reform Bills.

88 SPEECHES OF THE EAEL OF BEACONSFIELD.

necessary for me to dwell on this part of the question — we
may dismiss it from our minds, and I have touched on it only
to complete the picture which I am bound to place before the
House — in consequence of events which very speedily oc-
curred.

All this elaborate and, I may venture to say — not using the
word offensively, but accurately — pragmatical correspondence of
the noble lord on the affairs of Schleswig and Holstein was
carried on in perfect ignorance on the part of the people of
this country, who found very little interest in the subject ; and
even in Europe, where affairs of diplomacy always attract more
attention, little notice was taken of it. This correspondence,
however, culminated in a celebrated despatch which appeared
in the autumn of 1862, and then, for the first time, a very
great effect was produced in Europe generally — certainly in
Germany and France — and some interest began to be excited
in England. Sir, the effect of the Secretary of State's man-
agement of these transactions had been this, that he had en-
couraged— I will not now stop to enquire whether intention-
ally or not, but it is a fact that he had encouraged— the views
of what is called the German party in this controversy. That
had been the effect of the noble lord's general interference, but
especially it was the result of the despatch which appeared in the
autumn of 1862. But, Sir, something shortly and in conse-
quence occurred which removed that impression. Germany
being agitated on the subject, England at last, in 1863, having
had her attention called to the case, which began to produce
some disquietude, and gentlemen in this House beginning to
direct their attention to it, shortly before the prorogation of
Parliament, the state of affairs caused such a degree of public
anxiety, that it was deemed necessary that an enquiry should
be addressed to Her Majesty's Government on the subject, and
that some means should be taken to settle the uneasiness
which prevailed, by obtaining from ministers a declaration of
their policy generally with regard to Denmark.

Sir, that appeal was not made, as I need hardly assure or
even remind the House — for many were witnesses to it — in any
party spirit, or in any way animated, I will say, by that disci-

VOTE OF CENSUEE— DENMARK AND GERMANY, JULY 1864. 89

plined arrangement with which public questions are by both
sides of the House in general very properly brought before us. It
was at the end of the session, when few were left, and when the
answer of Her Majesty's ministers could not at all affect the
position of parties, though it might be of inestimable interest
and importance in its effect on the opinion of Europe and on
the course of events. That question was brought forward by
an honourable friend of mine (Mr. Seymour FitzGerald) who
always speaks on these subjects with the authority of one who
knows what he is talking about. Well, Sir, a communication
was made to the noble lord the First Minister on the subject,
and it was understood on this side of the House, from the
previous declarations of the noble lord, and our experience of
his career generally, that it was not an appeal which would be
disagreeable to him, or one which he would have any desire to
avoid. The noble lord was not taken by surprise. He was
communicated with privately, and he himself fixed the day —
it was a morning sitting — when he would come down and ex-
plain the views of the Government in regard to our relations
with Denmark.

I am bound to say that the noble lord spoke with all that
perspicuity and complete detail with which he always treats
diplomatic subjects, and in which we acknowledge him to be
a master. The noble lord entered into particulars and gave to
the House — who, with few exceptions, knew little about the
matter — not only a popular, but generally an accurate account
of the whole question. He described the constitution of the
Diet itself. He explained, for the first time in Parliament, what
federal execution meant. The noble lord was a little unhappy
in his prophecy as to what was going to happen with regard to
federal execution ; but we are all liable to error when we pro-
phesy, and it was the only -mistake he made. The noble lord
said he did not think there would be a federal execution, and
that if there were we might be perfectly easy in our minds, for
it would not lead to any disturbance in Europe. The noble lord
also described the position of Holstein as a German duchy, in
which the King of Denmark was a sovereign German prince,
and in that capacity a member of the Diet, and subject to the

90 SPEECHES OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD.

laws of the Diet. The duchy of Schleswig, the noble lord said,
was not a German duchy, and the moment it was interfered
with, international considerations would arise. But the noble
lord informed us in the most re-assuring spirit that his views on
our relations with Denmark were such as they had always been.
I will quote the exact passage from the noble lord's speech, not
because it will not be familiar to the majority of those whom I
am addressing, but because on an occasion like the present one
should refer to documents, so that it may not be said after-
wards that statements have been garbled or misrepresented.
The noble lord concluded his general observations in this
manner : —

' We are asked what is the policy and the course of Her
Majesty's Government respecting that dispute. We concur
entirely with the honourable gentleman (the member for Hors-
ham), and, I am satisfied, with all reasonable men in Europe,
including those in France and Russia, in desiring that the in-
dependence, the integrity, and the rights of Denmark may be
maintained. We are convinced — I am convinced at least —
that if any violent attempt were made to overthrow those
rights, and interfere with that independence, those who made
the attempt would find in the result that it would not be
Denmark alone with which they would have to contend.'

I say that is a clear, statesmanslike, and manly declaration
of policy. It was not a hurried or hasty expression of opinion,
because on a subject of that importance and that character, the
noble lord never makes a hasty expression of opinion. He was
master of the subject, and could not be taken by surprise. But
.on that occasion there was no chance of his being taken by
surprise. The occasion was arranged. The noble lord was per-
fectly informed of what our subject on this side was. The
noble lord sympathised with it. He wanted the disquietude of
the public mind in England, and on the Continent especially,
to be soothed and satisfied, and he knew that he could not
arrive at such a desirable result more happily and more com-
pletely than by a frank exposition of the policy of the Govern-
ment.

Sir, it is my business to-night to vindicate the noble lord

VOTE OF CENSURE— DENMARK AND GERMANY, JULY 1864. 91

from those who have treated this declaration of policy as one
used only to amuse the House of Commons. I am here to
prove the sincerity of that declaration. It is long since the
speech of the noble lord was delivered, and we have now upon
our table the diplomatic correspondence which was then being
carried on by Her Majesty's Government on the subject. It was
then secret — it is now known to us all ; and I will show you
what at that very time was the tone of the Secretary of State
in addressing the Courts of Germany mainly interested in the
question. I will show how entirely and how heartily the secret
efforts of the Government were exercised in order to carry into
effect the policy which was publicly in the House of Commons
announced by the noble lord. I think it must have been very
late in July that the noble lord spoke — upon the 23rd I believe
— and I have here the despatches which, nearly at the same
period, were being sent by the Secretary of State to the German
Courts. For example, hear how, on July 31, the Secretary of
State writes to Lord Bloomfield at Vienna : —

4 You will tell Count Kechberg that if Germany persists in
confounding Schleswig with Holstein, other Powers of Europe
may confound Holstein with Schleswig, and deny the right of
Germany to interfere with the one any more than she has with
the other, except as a European Power. Such a pretension
might be as dangerous to the independence and integrity of
Germany, as the invasion of Schleswig might be to the inde-
pendence and integrity of Denmark.' (' Denmark and Ger-
many,' No. 2, 115.)

And what is the answer of Lord Bloomfield? On Au-
gust 6, after having communicated with Count Rechberg, he
writes : —

' Before leaving His Excellency I informed him that the
Swedish Government would not remain indifferent to a federal
execution in Holstein, and that this measure of the Diet, if
persisted in, might have serious consequences in Europe.'
(P. 117.)

I am showing how sincere the policy of the noble lord was,
and that the speech which we have been told was mainly for
the House of Commons, was really the policy of Her Majesty's

92 SPEECHES OF THE EAEL OF BEACONSFIELD.

Government. Well, that was to Austria. Let us now see what
was the despatch to Prussia. In the next month Earl Kussell
writes to our minister at the Prussian Court : —

' I have caused the Prussian charge d'affaires to be in-
formed that if Austria and Prussia persist in advising the Con-
federation to make a federal execution now, they will do so
against the advice already given by Her Majesty's Government,
and must be responsible for the consequences, whatever they
may be. The Diet should bear in mind that there is a mate-
rial difference between the political bearing of a military
occupation of a territory which is purely and solely a portion
of the Confederation, and the invasion of a territory which,
although a part of the German Confederation, is also portion
of the territory of an independent Sovereign, whose dominions
are counted as an element in the balance of power in Europe.'

I have now shown the House what was the real policy of
the Government with respect to our relations with Denmark
when Parliament was prorogued, and I have also shown that
the speech of the noble lord the First Minister of the Crown
was echoed by the Secretary of State to Austria and Prussia.
I have shown, therefore, that it was a sincere policy, as an-
nounced by the noble lord. I will now show that it was a wise
and a judicious policy.

Sir, the noble lord having made this statement to the House
of Commons, the House was disbanded, the members went into
the country with perfect tranquillity of mind respecting these
affairs of Denmark and Germany. The speech of the noble
lord re-assured the country, and gave them confidence that the
noble lord knew what he was about. And the noble lord knew
that we had a right to be confident in the policy he had an-
nounced, because at that period the noble lord was aware that
France was perfectly ready to co-operate with Her Majesty's
Government in any measure which they thought proper to
adopt with respect to the vexed transactions between Denmark
and Germany. Nay, France was not only ready to co-operate,
but she spontaneously offered to act with us in any way we
desired. The noble lord made his speech at the end of July —
I think July 23 — and it is very important to know what at that

VOTE OF CENSURE— DENMARK AND GERMANY, JULY 1864. 93

moment were our relations with France in reference to this
subject. I find in the correspondence on the table a despatch
from Lord Cowley, dated July 31. The speech of the noble
lord having been made on the 23rd, this is a despatch written
upon the same subject on the 31st. Speaking of the affairs of
Germany and Denmark, Lord Cowley writes : —

1 M. Drouyn de Lhuys expressed himself as desirous of acting
in concert with Her Majesty's Government in this matter.'

I have now placed before the House the real policy of the
Government at the time Parliament was prorogued last year.
I have shown you that it was a sincere policy when expressed
by the noble lord. I have shown that it was a sound and
judicious policy, because Her Majesty's Government was then
conscious that France was ready to co-operate with this country,
France having expressed its desire to aid us in the settlement
. of this question. Well, Sir, at the end of the summer of last
- year, and at the commencement of the autumn, after the
speeches and despatches of the First Minister and the Secretary
!>'- of State, and after, at the end of July, that re-assuring an-
nouncement from the French Government, there was great
excitement in Germany. The German people have been for some
time painfully conscious that they do not exercise that influence
in Europe which they believe is due to the merits, moral, in-
tellectual, and physical, of forty millions of population, homo-
geneous and speaking the same language. During the summer
of last year this feeling was displayed in a remarkable manner,
and it led to the meeting at Frankfort, which has not been
hitherto mentioned in reference to these negotiations, but
which was in reality a very significant affair.

The German people at that moment found the old question
of Denmark — the relations between Denmark and the Diet — to
be the only practical question upon which they could exhibit
their love of a united fatherland, and their sympathy with a
kindred race who were subjects of a foreign prince. Therefore
there was very great excitement in Germany on the subject ; and
to those who are not completely acquainted with the German
character, and who take for granted that the theories they put
forth are all to be carried into action, there were no doubt many

94 SPEECHES OF THE EAEL OF BEACONSFIELD.

symptoms which were calculated to alarm the cabinet. Her
Majesty's Government, firm in their policy, firm in their ally,
knowing that the moderate counsels urged by France and Eng-
land in a spirit which was sincere and which could not be mis-
taken, must ultimately lead to some conciliatory arrangements
between the King of Denmark and the Diet, I suppose did not
much disquiet themselves respecting the agitation in Germany.
But towards the end of the summer and the commencement of
the autumn — in the month of September — after the meeting at
Frankfort and after other circumstances, the noble lord the
Secretary of State, as a prudent man — a wise, cautious, and
prudent minister — thought it would be just as well to take
time by the forelock, to prepare for emergencies, and to remind
his allies at Paris of the kind and spontaneous expression on
their part of their desire to co-operate with him in arranging
this business. I think it was on September 16, that Lord
Kussell, the Secretary of State, applied in this language to our
minister at Paris — our ambassador (Lord Cowley) being at that
time absent : —

' As it might produce some danger to the balance of power,
especially if the integrity and independence of Denmark were
in any way impaired by the demands of Germany, and the
measures consequent thereupon, if the Government of the
Emperor of the French are of opinion that any benefit would
be likely to follow from an offer of good services on the part of
Great Britain and France, Her Majesty's Government would
ready to take that course. If, however, the Government o:
France would consider such a step as likely to be unavailing
the two Powers might remind Austria, Prussia, and the Diet,
that any act on their part tending to weaken the integrity and
independence of Denmark would be at variance with the treaty
of May 8, 1852.' (No. 2, 130.)

Sir, I think that was a very prudent step on the part of the
Secretary of State. It was virtually a reminder of the offer
which France had made some months before. Yet, to the
surprise, and entirely to the discomfiture of Her Majesty's
Government, this application was received at first with coldness,
and afterwards with absolute refusal.

VOTE OF CENSURE— DENMARK AND GERMANY, JULY 1864. 95

Well, Sir, I pause now to inquire what had occasioned this
change in the relations between the two Courts. Why was
France, which at the end of the session of Parliament was so
heartily with England, and so approving the policy of the noble
lord with respect to Denmark and Germany that she volun-
tarily offered to act with us in endeavouring to settle the ques-
tion— why was France two or three months afterwards so
entirely changed ? Why was she so cold, and ultimately in the
painful position of declining to act with us ? I stop for a
moment my examination of this correspondence to look for the
causes of this change of feeling, and I believe they may be
easily discerned.

Sir, at the commencement of last year an insurrection broke
in Poland. Unhappily, insurrection in Poland is not an
unprecedented event. This insurrection was extensive and
menacing ; but there had been insurrections in Poland before
quite as extensive and far more menacing — the insurrection of
1831, for example, for at that time Poland possessed a national
army second to none for valour and discipline. Well, Sir, the
question of the Polish insurrection in 1831 was a subject of
deep consideration with the English Government of that day.
They went thoroughly into the matter ; they took the soundings
of that question ; it was investigated maturely, and the Govern-
ment of King William IV. arrived at these two conclusions —
first, that it was not expedient for England to go to war for
the restoration of Poland ; and, second, that if England was
not prepared to go to war, any interference of another kind on
her part would only aggravate the calamities of that fated
people. These were the conclusions at which the Government
of Lord Grey arrived, and they were announced to Parliament.

This is a question which the English Government has had
more than one opportunity of considering, and in every instance
they considered it fully and completely. It recurred again in
the year 1855, when a Conference was sitting at Vienna in the
midst of the Eussian war, and again the English Government
— the Government of the Queen — had to deal with the subject
of Poland. It was considered by them under the most favour-
able circumstances for Poland, for we were at war then, and at

96 SPEECHES OF THE EAEL OF BEACONSFIELD.

war with Eussia. But after performing all the duties of a
responsible ministry on that occasion, Her Majesty's Grovern-
ment arrived at these conclusions — first, that it was not only
not expedient for England to go to war to restore Poland, but
that it was not expedient even to prolong a war for that object j
and, in the next place, that any interference with a view to
provoke a war in Poland, without action on our part, was not
just to the Poles, and must only tend to bring upon them
increased disasters. I say, therefore, that this question of
Poland in the present century, and within the last thirty-four
years, has been twice considered by different Governments ; and
when I remind the House that on its consideration by the
cabinet of Lord Grey in 1831, the individual who filled the
office of Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and who, of
course, greatly guided the opinion of his colleagues on such a
question, was the noble lord the present First Minister of the
Crown ; and when I al=o remind the House that the British
plenipotentiary at the Conference of Vienna in 1855, on whose
responsibility in a great degree the decision then come to was
arrived at, is the present Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs,
I think that England, when the great difficulties of last year
with respect to Poland occurred, had a right to congratulate
herself that, in a situation of such gravity, and at an emergency
when a mistake might produce incalculable evils, her fortunes
were regulated not only by two statesmen of such great ability
and experience, but by statesmen who, on this subject, possessed
peculiar advantages, who had thoroughly entered into the
question, who knew all its issues, all the contingencies that
might possibly arise in its management, and who on the two
previous occasions on which it had been submitted to the con
sideration of England, had been the guiding ministers to de-
termine her to a wise course of action.

Now, I must observe that what is called the Polish question
occupies a different position in France from that which it occu-
pies in England. I will not admit that, in deep sympathy with
the Poles, the French are superior to the English people. I
believe I am only stating accurately the feelings of this country
when I say, that among men of all classes there is no modern

VOTE OF CENSUKE— DENMAKK AND GEKMANY, JULY 1864. 97

event which is looked back to with more regret than the parti-
tion of Poland. It is universally acknowledged by them to be
one of the darkest pages of the history of the eighteenth cen-
tury. But in France the Polish question is not a question
which merely interests the sentiments of the millions. It is a
political question, and a political question of the very highest
importance — a question which interests ministers, and cabinets,
and princes. Well, the ruler of France, a sagacious prince and
a lover of peace, as the Secretary of State has just informed us,
was of course .perfectly alive to the grave issues involved in
what is called the Polish question. But the Emperor knew
perfectly well that England had already had opportunities of
considering it in the completest manner, and had arrived at a
settled conclusion with regard to it. Therefore, with charac-
teristic caution, he exercised great reserve, and held out little
encouragement to the representatives of the Polish people.
He knew well that in 1855 he himself, our ally — and with us a
conquering ally — had urged this question on the English
Government, and that, under the most favourable circum-
stances for the restoration of Poland, we had adhered to our
traditionary policy, neither to go to war nor to interfere.
Therefore, the French Government exhibited a wise reserve on
the subject.

But after a short time, what must have been the astonish-
ment of the Emperor of the French when he found the English
Government embracing the cause of Poland with extraordinary
ardour ! The noble lord the Secretary of State and the noble
lord the First Minister, but especially the former, announced
this policy as if it were a policy new to the consideration of
statesmen, and likely to lead to immense results. He abso-
lutely served a notice to quit on the Emperor of Eussia. He
sent a copy of this despatch to all the Courts of Europe which
were signataries of the treaty of Vienna, and invited them to
follow his example. From the King of Portugal down to the
King of Sweden there was not a signatary of that treaty who
was not, as it were, clattering at the palace gates of St. Peters-
burg, and calling the Czar to account respecting the affairs of
Poland. For three months Europe generally believed that

VOL. II. H

98 SPEECHES OF THE EAKL OF BEACONSFIELD.

there was to be a war on a great scale, of which the restoratioi
of Poland was to be one of the main objects. Is it at all re
markable that the French Government and the French people
cautious as they were before, should have responded to such
invitations and such stimulating proposals ? We know how the
noble lord fooled them to the top of their bent. The House
recollects the six propositions to which the attention of the
Emperor of Eussia was called in the most peremptory manner.
The House recollects the closing scene, when it was arrange
that -the ambassadors of France, Austria, and England, shouk
on the very same day appear at the hotel of the minist
of Eussia, and present notes ending with three identic^
paragraphs, to show the agreement of the Powers. An ii
pression pervaded Europe that there was to be a general war,
and that England, France, and Austria were united to restoi
Poland.

The House remembers the end of all this — it remember
the reply 1 of the Eussian minister, couched in a tone of haughtj
sarcasm and of indignation that deigned to be ironical. Thei
was then but one step to take, according to the views of tl
French Government, and that was action. They appealed
that England which had itself thus set the example of agitatioi
on the subject ; and England, wisely as I think, recurred
her traditionary policy, the Government confessing that it WE
a momentary indiscretion which had animated her councils fo
three or four months ; that they never meant anything mor
than words ; and a month afterwards, I believe, they sent to S
Petersburg an obscure despatch, which may be described as s
apology. But this did not alter the position of the Frenc
Government and the French Emperor. The Emperor had beer
induced by us to hold out promises which he could not fulfil
He was placed in a false position towards both the people o
Poland and the people of France ; and therefore, Sir, I am nol
surprised that when the noble lord the Secretary of State, ;
little alarmed by the progress of affairs in Germany, though
it discreet to reconnoitre his position on September 17,
should have been received at Paris with coldness, and, ulti
1 « Russia was ready to assume that responsibility before God and man.'

[TOTE OF CENSURE— DENMAEK AND GERMANY, JULY 1864. 99

nately, that his despatch should have been answered in this
nanner.

I fear that I may weary the House with my narrative, but
will not abuse the privilege of reading extracts, which is
generally very foreign to my desire. Yet, on a question of this
dnd it is better to have the documents, and not lay oneself
rpen to the charge of garbling. Mr. Grey, writing to Lord
Russell on September 18, 1863, says: —

' The second mode of proceeding suggested by your lordship
—namely, *'to remind Austria, Russia, and the German Diet,
hat any acts on their part tending to weaken the integrity and
ndependence of Denmark would be at variance with the treaty
>f May 8, 1852," would be in a great measure analogous to the
-ourse pursued by Great Britain and France in the Polish
[uestion.. He had no inclination (and he frankly avowed that
le should so speak to the Emperor) to place France in the same
>osition with reference to Germany as she had been placed in
sith regard to Eussia. The formal notes addressed by the
hree Powers to Russia had received an answer which literally
meant nothing, and the position in which those three great
Powers were now placed was anything but dignified ; and if
England and France were to address such a reminder as that
proposed to Austria, Prussia, and the German Confederation,
they must be prepared to go further, and to adopt a course of
action more in accordance with the dignity of two great Powers
than they were now doing in the Polish question. . . . Unless
Her Majesty's Government was prepared to go further, if
1 necessary, than the mere presentation of a note, and the receipt
i of an evasive re'ply, he was sure the Emperor would not consent
! to adopt your lordship's suggestion.' (No. 2, 131.)

Well, Sir, that was an intimation to the noble lord with res-
' pect to the change in the relations between England and France
that was significant ; I think it was one that the noble lord
< should have duly weighed — and when he remembered the posi-
tion which this country occupied with regard to Denmark — that
it was a position under the treaty which did not bind us to
interfere more than France itself — conscious, at the same time,
that any co-operation from Russia in the same cause could

H 2

100 SPEECHES OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD.

hardly be counted upon. I should have said that a prudent
Government would have well considered that position, and that
they would not have taken any course which committed them
too strongly to any decided line of action. But so far as I can
judge from the correspondence before us, that was not the tone
taken by Her Majesty's Government ; because here we have
extracts from the correspondence of the Secretary of State to
the Swedish minister, to the Diet at Frankfort, and a most
important despatch to Lord Bloomfield : all in the fortnight
that elapsed after the receipt of the despatch of Mr. Grey that
notified the change in the feeling of the French Grovernment.
It is highly instructive that we should know what effect that
produced in the system and policy of Her Majesty's Government.
Immediately — almost the day after the receipt of that despatch
— the Secretary of State wrote to the Swedish minister : —

' Her Majesty's Government set the highest value on the
independence and integrity of Denmark. . . . Her Majesty's
Government will be ready to remind Austria and Prussia oi
their treaty obligations to respect the integrity and independence
of Denmark.' (No. 2, 137-8.)

Then on September 29 — that is, only nine or ten days after
the receipt of the French despatch — we have this most important
despatch, which I shall read at some little length. It is at
page 136, and is really addressed to the Diet. The Secretary
of State says : —

1 Her Majesty's Government, by the treaty of London o:
May 8, 1852, is bound to respect the integrity and independ-
ence of Denmark. The Emperor of Austria and the King of
Prussia have taken the same engagement. Her Majesty could
not see with indifference a military occupation of Hoist ein,
which is only to cease on terms injuriously affecting the consti-
tion of the whole Danish monarchy. Her Majesty's Govern-
ment could not recognise this military occupation as a legiti-
mate exercise of the powers of the Confederation, or admit that
it could properly be called a federal execution. Her Majesty's
Government could not be indifferent to the bearing of such an
act upon Denmark and European interests. Her Majesty's
Government therefore earnestly entreat the German Diet to

VOTE OF CENSURE— DENMARK AND GERMANY, JULY 1864. 101

pause and to submit the questions in dispute between Germany
and Denmark to the mediation of other Powers unconcerned in
the controversy, but deeply concerned in the maintenance of
the peace of Europe and the independence of Denmark.'
(No. 2, 145.)

My object in reading this despatch is to show that, after the
dication of the change of feeling on the part of France, the
ilicy — the sincere policy — of the Government was not modified,
e Secretary of State writes thus on September 30, to Lord
loomfield at Vienna : —

'Her Majesty's Government trust that no act of federal
xecution to which Austria may be a party, and no act of war
inst Denmark on the ground of the affairs of Schleswig, will
e allowed to clash with this primary and essential treaty obliga-
on. Her Majesty's Government, indeed, entertain a full con-
fidence that the Government of Austria is as deeply impressed
Her Majesty's Government with the conviction that the in-
ependence and integrity of Denmark form an essential element
the balance of power in Europe.' (No. 3, 147.)
Now, this takes us to the end of September ; and I think the
House up to this time tolerably clearly understands the course
of the correspondence. Nothing of any importance happened
in October that requires me to pause and consider it. "We
arrive, then, at the month of November, and now approach very
important and critical affairs. The month of November was
remarkable for the occurrence of two great events which com-
pletely changed the character and immensely affected the aspect
of the whole relations between Denmark and Germany ; and
which produced consequences which none of us may see the
end of. Early in November the Emperor of the French pro-
posed a European Congress. His position was such — as he
himself has described it, there can be no indelicacy in saying
so — his position had become painful from various causes, but
mainly from the manner in which he had misapprehended the
conduct of the English Government with regard to Poland. He
saw great troubles about to occur in Europe ; he wished to antici-
pate their settlement ; he felt himself in a false position with
respect to his own subjects, because he had experienced a great

102 SPEECHES OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD.

diplomatic discomfiture ; but he was desirous — and there is no
doubt of the sincerity of the declaration — he was desirous of
still taking a course which should restore and retain the cordial
understanding with this country. He proposed, then, a general
Congress.

Well, when Parliament met on February 4 I had to make
certain observations on the general condition of affairs, and
I gave my opinion as to the propriety of Her Majesty's Govern-
ment refusing to be a party to that Congress. Generally
speaking, I think that a Congress should not precede action.
If you wish any happy and permanent results from a Congress,
it should rather follow the great efforts of nations ; and when
they are somewhat exhausted, give them the opportunity of an
honourable settlement. Sir, I did not think it my duty to
conceal my opinion, Her Majesty's Government having admitted
that they had felt it their duty to refuse a proposition of that
character. I should have felt that I was wanting in that in-
genuousness and fair-play in politics which I hope, whoever
sits on that bench or this, we shall always pursue, if, when the
true interests of the country are concerned, agreeing as I did with
the Government, I did not express frankly that opinion. But,
Sir, I am bound to say that had I been aware of what has been
communicated to us by the papers on the table — had I been
aware, when I spoke on February 4, that only a week before
Parliament met, that only a week before we were assured by a
Speech from the Throne, that Her Majesty was continuing to
carry on negotiations in the interest of peace — that Her
Majesty's Government had made a proposition l to France which
must inevitably have produced, if accepted, a great European
war, I should have given my approbation in terms much more
qualified.

But, Sir, whatever difference of opinion there might be as
to the propriety or impropriety of Her Majesty's Government
acceding to the Congress, I think there were not then — I am
sure there are not now — two opinions as to the mode and
manner in which that refusal was conveyed. Sir, when the
noble lord vindicated that curt and, as I conceive, most offen-

1 Cf. p. 117.

VOTE OF CENSURE— DENMARK AND GERMANY, JULY 1864. 103

sive reply, he dilated the other night on the straightforwardness
of British ministers, and said that, by whatever else their lan-
guage might be characterised, it was distinguished by candour
and clearness, and that even where it might be charged with
being coarse, it at least conveyed a determinate meaning.
Well, Sir, I wish that if our diplomatic language is characterised
by clearness and straightforwardness, some of that spirit had
distinguished the despatches and declarations addressed by the
noble lord to the Court of Denmark. It is a great pity that we
did not have a little of that rude frankness when the fortunes
of that ancient kingdom were at stake.

But, Sir, another event of which I must now remind the
House happened about that time. In November the King of
Denmark died. The death of the King of Denmark entirely
changed the character of the question between Grermany and
Denmark. The question was a federal question before, as the
noble lord, from the despatches I have read, was perfectly
aware ; but by the death of the King of Denmark it became an
international question, because the controversy of the King of
Denmark was with the Diet of Grermany, which had not recog-
nised the change in the lex regia, or the changes in the suc-
cession to the various dominions of the King. It was, there-
fore, an international question of magnitude and of a menacing
character. Under these circumstances, when the question be-
came European, when the difficulties were immensely magnified
and multiplied — the offer of a Congress having been made on
November 5, and not refused until the 27th, the King of Den-
mark having died on the 16th — it was, I say, with a complete
knowledge of the increased risk and of the increased dimensions
of the interests at stake, that the noble lord sent that answer
to the invitation of the Emperor of the French. I say, Sir,
that at this moment it became the Grovernment of England
seriously to consider their position. With the offer of the Con-
gress, and with the death of the King of Denmark — with these
two remarkable events before the noble lord's eyes, it is my
duty to remind the House of the manner in which the noble
lord the Secretary of State addressed the European Powers.
Neither of these great events seems to have induced the noble

104 SPEECHES OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD.

lord to modify his tone. On November 19, the King having
just died, the Secretary of State writes to Sir Alexander Malet,
our minister to the Diet, to remind him that all the Powers of
Europe had agreed to the treaty of 1852. On the 20th he
writes a letter of menace to the German Powers, saying that
Her Majesty's Government expect, as a matter of course, that
all the Powers will recognise the succession of the King of Den-
mark as heir of all the States which, according to the treaty of
London, were united under the sceptre of the late King. And
on the 23rd, four days before he refused the invitation to the
Congress, he writes to Lord Bloomfield : —

' Her Majesty's Government would have no right to inter-
fere on behalf of Denmark if the troops of the Confederation
should enter Holstein on federal grounds. But if execution
were enforced on international grounds, the Powers who signed
the treaty of 1852 would have a right to interfere. (No. 3,
230.)

To Sir Augustus Paget, our minister at Copenhagen, on
November 30 — the House will recollect that this was after he
had refused the Congress, after the King had died, and after the
question had become an international one — he writes announc-
ing his refusal of the Congress, and proposing the sole mediation
of England. Then he writes to Sir Alexander Malet in the
same month, that Her Majesty's Government can only leave to
Germany the sole responsibility of raising a war in Europe,
which the Diet seemed bent on making.

That is the tone which the Government adopted, after the
consideration, as we are bound to believe, which the question
demanded, after having incurred the responsibility of refusing
the Congress offered by the Emperor of the French, after the
death of the King of Denmark, after the question had been
changed from a federal to an international one — such, I repeat,
is the tone they took up, and in which they sent their menacing
messages to every Court in Germany. I say that at the death
of the King of Denmark it behoved Her Majesty's ministers,
instead of adopting such a course, maturely to consider their
position in relation to the events which had occurred. There
were two courses open to Her Majesty's Government, both

VOTE OF CENSUEE— DENMAEK AND GEEMANY, JULY 1864. 105

intelligible, both honourable. It was open to them, after the
death of the King of Denmark, to have acted as France had
resolved under the same circumstances to act — France, who
occupies, we are told, a position in reference to these matters so
dignified and satisfactory that it has received the compliments
even of a baffled minister. That course was frankly announced
shortly afterwards to the English minister by the minister of
France in Denmark. On November 19 General Fleury said to
Lord Wodehouse at Copenhagen : —

' That his own instructions from the Emperor were, not to
take part in any negotiations here, but to tell the Danish
Government explicitly that if Denmark became involved in a
war with Germany, France would not come to her assistance.'

If England had adopted that course it would have been
intelligible and honourable. "We were not bound by the treaty
of 1852 to go to the assistance of Denmark if she became in-
volved in a war with Germany. No one pretends that we were.
As a matter of high policy, much as we may regret any disturb-
ance in the territorial limits of Europe, being a country the
policy of which is a policy of tranquillity and peace, there were
no adequate considerations which could have justified England
in entering into an extensive European war, without allies, to
prevent a war between Denmark and Germany. That was, I
say, an honourable and intelligible course.

There was another course equally intelligible and equally
honourable. Though I am bound to say that the course which
I should have recommended the country to take would have
T^een to adopt the same position as that of France, yet, if the
Government really entertained the views with respect to the
balance of power which have been expressed occasionally in the
House by the noble lord, and in a literary form by the Secretary
of State — from which I may say I disagree, because they appear
to me to be founded on the obsolete tradition of an antiquated
system, and because I think that the elements from which we
ought to form an opinion as to the distribution of the power of
the world must be collected from a much more extensive area,
and must be formed of larger and more varied elements :
but let that pass : yet, I say, if Her Majesty's Government

106 SPEECHES OF THE EAKL OF BEACONSFIELD.

were of opinion that the balance of power was endangered by a
quarrel between Germany and Denmark, they were justified in
giving their advice to Denmark, in threatening Germany, and
in taking the general management of the affairs of Denmark ;
but they were bound, if a war did take place between Germany
and Denmark, to support Denmark. Instead of that, they in-
vented a process of conduct which I hope is not easily exampled
in the history of this country, and which I can only describe in
one sentence — it consisted of menaces never accomplished and
promises never fulfilled.

With all these difficulties they never hesitate in their tone.
At least, let us do them this justice — there never were, in
semblance, more determined ministers. They seemed at least
to rejoice in the phantom of a proud courage. But what do-
they do ? They send a special envoy to Denmark, who was to
enforce their policy and arrange everything. Formally the
special envoy was sent to congratulate the King on his accession
to the throne of Denmark, and all the other Powers did the
same ; but in reality the mission of Lord Wodehouse was for
greater objects than that, and his instructions are before us in
full. Without wearying the House by reading the whole of
those instructions, I will read one paragraph, which is the last,
and which is, as it were, a summary of the whole. They were
written at the end of December. Recollect, this is the policy
of the Government after refusing the Congress, and after the
death of the King of Denmark, which had therefore incurred
a still deeper responsibility, and which, we must suppose, had
deeply considered all the issues involved. This is the cream
of the instructions given by the Government to Lord Wode-
house : —

4 The result to be arrived at is the fulfilment of the treaty
of May 8, 1852, and of the engagements entered into by
Prussia and Austria and Denmark in 1851-2.' (No. 3, 353.)

Lord Wodehouse could not possibly be at fault as to what
he was to do when he arrived at his destination. His was, no
doubt, a significant appointment. He was a statesman of some
experience ; he had held a subordinate but important position
in the administration of our foreign affairs; he had been a

VOTE OF CENSURE— DENMARK AND GERMANY, JULY 1864. 107"

minister at a northern Court ; he had recently distinguished
himself in Parliament by a speech on the question of Germany
and Denmark, in which he took a decidedly Danish view.
Lord Wodehouse received clear instructions as to what he was
to do. But, at the same time, what was the conduct of the
Secretary of State ? While Lord Wodehouse was repairing to
his post, did the Secretary of State in the least falter in his
tone ? It was about this time that the great diplomatic repri-
mand was sent to Sir Alexander Malet for having talked of the
* protocol ' of 1852 instead of the 'treaty.' This was the time
that instructions were sent out that if anybody had the hardi-
hood to mention the * protocol ' of 1852 he was immediately
to be stopped. However elevated his position might be, even
if it were M. Bismarck himself, he was to be pulled up
directly, in the full flow of his eloquence ; note was to be
taken of this great diplomatic lapsus, and the minister was to
telegraph instantly home to his Government how he had carried
out his instructions in this respect. On December 17 the noble
lord thus wrote to Sir Andrew Buchanan, our ambassador at
Berlin : —

'Let it suffice at present for Her Majesty's Government to
declare that they would consider any departure from the treaty
of succession of 1852, by Powers who signed or acceded to that
treaty, as entirely inconsistent with good faith.' (No. 3, 383.)

Similar despatches were sent to Wurtemberg, Hanover, and
Saxony. On December 23 the noble Earl wrote to Sir Andrew
Buchanan : —

' If the overthrow of the dynasty now reigning in Denmark
is sought by Germany, the most serious consequences may
ensue.' (No. 3, 411.) (Cheers.)

I want to know what honourable members mean by cheering
the words I have just quoted. If you wish to convey even to a
little Power that if it does a certain thing you will go to war
with it, you take care not to announce your intention in an
offensive manner ; because, were you to do so, probably, even
the smallest Power in Europe would not yield. And certainly
if you wish to tell a great Power in Europe what may be even-
tually the consequences if it should adopt a different line from

108 SPEECHES OF THE EAKL OF BEACONSFIELD,

that which you desire, you would not abruptly declare that if
it declined to accede to your wish you would declare war.
Why, there are no despatches on record in the world — there is
no record in any Foreign Office of language of this kind. The
question is, what interpretation can be put on these threats.
The Secretary of State writes again on December 25 to Sir
Andrew Buchanan, stating that —

* Any precipitate action on the part of the German Confeder-
ation may lead to consequences fatal to the peace of Europe,
and may involve Germany, in particular, in difficulties of the
most serious nature.' (No. 4, 414.)

On December 26 the Secretary of State writes to Sir
Alexander Malet, and sends him a copy of the treaty of 1852,
in order that he may communicate it to the Diet. Now, that
is the state of affairs after the King of Denmark's death ; after
he had been perfectly acquainted with the policy of France ;
after he had been frankly told that the French Emperor had
explicitly informed Denmark that if she got involved in war
with Germany, France would not come to her assistance.
Now the words * if she went to war ' might have been interpreted
in two ways ; because she might get into war without any fault
of her own, and Germany might be the aggressor : but there
could be no mistake in regard to the words * if she became
involved in war.' Neither Denmark nor England could make
any mistake in regard to the policy of France, which the
Secretary of State now says was a magnanimous policy.

Notwithstanding these threats, notwithstanding these
repeated menaces, and notwithstanding every effort made by
Her Majesty's Government to prevent it, federal execution took
place, as it was intended to take place. One day, after the most
menacing epistle which I have ever read — the day after the
copy of the treaty of 1852 had been solemnly placed before the
Diet by Sir Alexander Malet — on December 27, federal execu-
tion took place. At any rate, I do not think that is evi-
dence of the just influence of England in the counsels of
Germany.

What was the course of Her Majesty's Government at this
critical conjuncture ? Why, Sir, they went again to France.

VOTE OF CENSURE— DENMARK AND G-EKMANY, JULY 1864. 109

After all that had happened their only expedient was to go
and supplicate France. I will read the letter. (Mr. Layard :
Hear, hear !) The honourable gentleman seems to triumph in
the recollection of mistakes and disappointments. I will give
him the date, but I should think it must really be seared upon
his conscience. December 27 is the date of the federal
execution : and Her Majesty's Government must have been in
a state of complete panic, because on the 28th they make appli-
cation to France, which is answered in a few hours by Lord
Cowley : ' I said Her Majesty's Government were most sincerely

anxious to ' (laughter). I wish really to be candid, not to

misrepresent anything, and to put the case before the House
without garbling any of the despatches. — ' I said that Her
Majesty's Government were most sincerely anxious to act with
the Imperial Government in this question.' No doubt they
were. I am vindicating your conduct. I believe in your sin-
cerity throughout. It is only your intense incapacity that I
denounce. The passage in the despatch is Shakspearean ; it
is one of those dramatic descriptions which only a masterly
pen could accomplish. Lord Cowley went on : —

* Her Majesty's Government felt that if the two Powers
could agree, war might be avoided ; otherwise the danger of war
was imminent. M. Drouyn de Lhuys said he partook this
opinion ; but as his Excellency made no further observation, I
remarked it would be a grievous thing if the difference of
opinion which had arisen upon the merits of a general Congress
were to produce an estrangement which would leave each
Government to pursue its own course. I hoped that this would
not be the case. Her Majesty's Government would do all in
their power to avoid it. I presumed I might give them the
assurance that the Imperial Government were not decided to
reject the notion of a Conference.' (No. 4, 444.)

Well, Sir, this received a curt and unsatisfactory reply.
Nothing could be obtained from that plaintive appeal of Lord
Cowley. Well, what did Her Majesty's Government do ?
Having received information that the threat of federal execu-
tion had been fulfilled, having appealed to France, and been
treated in the manner I have described, what did the Govern-

110 SPEECHES OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD .

ment do ? Why, the Secretary of State, within twenty-four
hours afterwards, penned the fiercest despatch he had ever yet
written. It is dated December 31, 1863, and it is addressed to
Sir Andrew Buchanan : —

' Her Majesty's Government do not hold that war would
relieve Prussia from the obligations of the treaty of 1852. The
King of Denmark would by that treaty be entitled still to be
acknowledged as the sovereign of all the dominions of the late
King of Denmark. He has been so entitled from the time of
the death of the late King. A war of conquest undertaken by
Germany avowedly for the purpose of adding some parts of the
Danish dominions to the territory of the German Confederation
might, if successful, alter the state of succession contemplated
by the treaty of London, and give to Germany a title by con-
quest to parts of the dominions of the King of Denmark. The
prospect of such an accession may no doubt be a temptation to
those who think it can be accomplished; but Her Majesty's
Government cannot believe that Prussia will depart from the
straight line of good faith in order to assist in carrying such a
project into effect.' (No. 4, 445.) (Ministerial cheers.)

You cheer as if it were a surprising thing that the Secretary
of State should have written a single sentence of common sense.
These are important State documents, and I hope Her Majesty's
Government are not so fallen that there is not a minister
among them who is able to write a despatch — I do not say a
bad despatch, but a very important one. I wish to call attention
to its importance : —

' If German nationality in Holstein, and particularly in
Schleswig, were made the ground of the dismemberment of
Denmark, Polish nationality in the Duchy of Posen would be a
ground equally strong for the dismemberment of Prussia. It
appears to Her Majesty's Government that the safest course for
Prussia to pursue is to act with good faith and honour, and to
stand by and fulfil her treaty engagements. By such a course
she will command the sympathy and approval of Europe ; by a
contrary course she will draw down upon herself the universal
condemnation of all disinterested men. By this course alone
war in Europe can be with certainty prevented.' (No. 4, 445.)

VOTE OF CENSUEE— DENMAEK AND GEEMANY, JULY 1864. Ill

Well, Sir, that I think was a bold despatch to write after the
rejection, for the second or third time, of our overtures to
France. That brings us up to the last day of the year.

But before I proceed to more recent transactions, it is
necessary to call the attention of the House to the remarkable
contrast between the menaces lavished on Germany and the
expectations — to use the mildest term — that were held out to
Denmark. The first great object of Her Majesty's Government
when the difficulties began to be very serious, was to induce
Denmark to revoke the patent of Holstein — that is, to terminate
its constitution. The constitution of Holstein had been granted
very recently before the death of the King, with a violent desire
on the part of the monarch to fulfil his promises. It was a wise
and excellent constitution, by which Holstein became virtually
independent. It enjoyed the fullness of self-government, and
was held only by a sovereign tie to Denmark, as Norway is
held to Sweden. The Danish Government were not at all willing
to revoke the constitution in Holstein. It was one that did
them credit, aud was naturally popular in Holstein. Still, the
Diet was very anxious that the patent should be revoked,
because if Holstein continued satisfied it was impossible to trade
on the intimate connection between Schleswig and Holstein,
the lever by which the kingdom of Denmark was to be destroyed.
The Diet, therefore, insisted that the patent should be revoked.
Her Majesty's Government, I believe, approved the patent of
Holstein, as the Danish Government had done, but, as a means
of obtaining peace and saving Denmark, they made use of all
the means in their power to induce Denmark to revoke that
constitution. Sir Augustus Paget, writing to the Foreign
Secretary on October 14, and describing an interview with M.
Hall, the Prime Minister of Denmark, says : —

* After much further conversation, in which I made use of
every argument to induce his Excellency to adopt a conciliatory
course, and in which I warned him of the danger of rejecting
the friendly counsels now offered by Her Majesty's Government '
—(No. 3, 162)—

M. Hall promises to withdraw the patent. What interpre-
tation could M. Hall place on that interview ? He was called

,.
>-•

112 SPEECHES OF THE EAEL OF BEACONSFIELD.

upon to do what he knew to be distasteful, and believed to be
impolitic. He is warned of the danger of rejecting those
friendly counsels, and in consequence of that warning he gives
way and surrenders his opinion. I would candidly ask what is
the interpretation which in private life would be put on such
language as I have quoted, and which had been acted upon by
those to whom it was addressed ?

Well, we now come to the federal execution in Holstem-
Speaking literally, the federal execution was a legal act, and
Denmark could not resist it. But from the manner in which it
was about to be carried into effect, and in consequence of the
pretensions connected with it, the Danes were of opinion that
it would have been better at once to resist the execution,
which aimed a fatal blow at the independence of Schleswig,
and upon this point they felt strongly. Well, Her Majesty's
Government — and I give them full credit for being actuated by
the best motives — thought otherwise, and wished the Danish
Government to submit to this execution. And what was the
sort of language used by them in order to bring about that
result ? Sir Augustus Paget replied in this way to the objec-
tions of the Danish minister : —

4 1 replied that Denmark would at all events have a better
chance of securing the assistance of the Powers if the execu-
tion were not resisted.'

I ask any candid man to put his own interpretation upon
this language. And on the 12th of the same month Lord
Russell himself tells M. Bille, the Danish Minister in London,
that there is no connection between the engagements of Den-
mark to Germany and the engagements of the German Powers
under the treaty of 1852. After such a declaration from the
English Minister in the metropolis — a declaration which must
have had the greatest effect upon the policy of the Danish
Government — of course they submitted to the execution. But
having revoked the patent and submitted to the execution, as
neither the one nor the other was the real object of the Ger-
man Powers, a new demand was made which was one of the
greatest consequence.

Now, listen to this. The new demand was to repeal the

VOTE OF CENSURE -DENMARK AND GERMANY, JULY 1864. 113

whole constitution. I want to put clearly before the House
the position of the Danish Government with respect to this
much-talked-of constitution. There had been in the preceding
year a Parliamentary Eeform Bill carried in Denmark. The
King died before having given his assent to it, though he was
most willing to have done so. The instant the new King
succeeded the Parliamentary Reform Bill was brought to him.
Of course great excitement prevailed in Denmark, just as it did
in England at the time of the Reform Bill under similar cir-
cumstances, and the King was placed in a most difficult position.
Now, observe this : England, who was so obtrusive and prag-
matical in the counsels which she gave, who was always offering
advice and suggestions, hung back when the question arose
whether the new King should give his assent to the Reform Bill
or not. England was selfishly silent, and would incur no respon-
sibility. The excitement in Copenhagen was great, and the
King gave his assent to the Bill. But mark ! At that moment
it was not at all impossible that if Her Majesty's Government
had written a despatch to Copenhagen asking the King not to
give his assent to the Bill for the space of six weeks, in order to
assist England in the negotiations she was carrying on in behalf
of Denmark ; and if the King had convened his council and
laid before them the expressed wish of an ally who was then
looked upon by Denmark with confidence and hope, especially
from the time that France had declared she would not assist
her, I cannot doubt that the King would have complied with a
request that was so important to his fortunes. But the instant
the King had sanctioned the new constitution, the English
Government began writing despatches calling upon him to
revoke it. Ay, but what was his position then ? How could he
revoke it ? The King was a constitutional king ; he could
have put an end to this constitution only by a coup d'etat ;
and he was not in a position, nor I believe if he were had he
the inclination, to do such an act. The only constitutional
course open to him was to call the new Parliament together,
with the view of their revoking the constitution.

But see what would have been the position of affairs then.
In England the Reform Act was passed in 1832, new elections

VOL. II. I

114 SPEECHES OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD.

took place under it, and the House assembled under Lord
Althorp, as the leader of the Government. Now, suppose
Lord Althorp had come down to that House with a King's
speech recommending them to revoke the Reform Act, and
have asked leave to introduce another Bill for the purpose of
reforming the constitution, would it not have been asking
an utter impossibility ? But how did Her Majesty's Govern-
ment act towards Denmark in similar circumstances ? First of
all, the noble lord at the head of the Foreign Office wrote to
Lord Wodehouse on December 20, giving formal advice to the
Danish Government to repeal the constitution, and Lord Wode-
house, who had been sent upon this painful and, I must say,
impossible office to the Danish minister, thus speaks of the
way in which he had performed his task : —

' I pointed out to M. Hall also that if, on the one hand,
Her Majesty's Government would never counsel the Danish
Government to yield anything inconsistent with the honour
and independence of the Danish Crown, and the integrity of
the King's dominions ; so, on the other hand, we had a right to
expect that the Danish Government would not, by putting for-
ward extreme pretensions, drive matters to extremities.'

And Sir Augustus Paget, who appears to have performed
his duty with great temper and talent, writing on December
22, says : —

' I asked M. Hall to reflect what would be the position of
Denmark if the advice of the Powers were refused, and what
it would be if accepted, and to draw his own conclusions.*
(No. 4, 420.)

Now, I ask, what are the conclusions which any gentleman
— I do not care on what side of the House he may sit — would
have drawn from such language as that ? But before that, a
special interview took place between Lord Wodehouse and the
Danish Minister, of which Lord Wodehouse writes : —

' It was my duty to declare to M. Hall that if the Danish
Government rejected our advice, Her Majesty's Government
must leave Denmark to encounter Germany on her own re-
sponsibility.'

Well, Sir, I ask again whether there are two interpretations

fOTE OF CENSURE — -DENMAEK AND GEEMANY, JULY 1864. 115

be put upon such observations as these ? And what hap-
ned ? It was impossible for M. Hall, who was the author of
e constitution, to put an end to it ; so he resigned — a new
overnment is formed, and under the new constitution Parlia-
ent is absolutely called together to pass an Act to terminate
own existence. And in January Sir Augustus Paget tells
the Danish Government, with some naivete —

* If they would summon the Eigsraad, and propose the re-
peal of the constitution, they would act wisely, in accordance
with the advice of their friends, and the responsibility of the
war would not be laid at their door.'

Well, then, these were three great' subjects on which the
representation of England induced Denmark to adopt a course
against her will, and, as the Danes believed, against their
policy. The plot begins to thicken. Notwithstanding the
revocation of the patent, the federal execution, and the re-
peal of the constitution, one thing more is wanted, and Schles-
•wig is about to be invaded. Affairs now become most critical.
No sooner .is this known than a very haughty menace is sent
to Austria. From a despatch of Lord Bloomfield, dated
December 31, it will be seen that Austria was threatened, if
Schleswig was invaded, that

' The consequences would be serious. The question would
cease to be a purely German one, and would become one of
European importance.'

On January 4, Earl Eussell writes to Mr. Murray, at the
Court of Saxony : —

' The most serious consequences are to be apprehended if
the Germans invade Schleswig.' (No. 4, 481.)

On the 9th, again, he writes to Dresden : —

* The line taken by Saxony destroys confidence in diplo-
matic relations with that State.' (No. 4, 502.)

On January 18 he writes to Lord Bloomfield : —

* You are instructed to represent in the strongest terms to
Count Eechberg, and, if you shall have an opportunity of
doing so, to the Emperor, the extreme injustice and danger of
the principle and practice of taking possession of the territory
of a State as what is called a material guarantee for the obtain-

i 2

116 SPEECHES OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD.

ment of certain international demands, instead of pressing
those demands by the usual method of negotiation. Such a
practice is fatal .to peace, and destructive of the independence
of States. It is destructive of peace because it is an act of war,,
and if resistance takes place it is the beginning of war. But
war so begun may not be confined within the narrow limits o\
its early commencement, as was proved in 1853, when the
occupation of the Danubian Principalities by Kussia as a
material guarantee proved the direct cause of the Crimean war.'
(No. 4, 564.)

It is only because I do not wish to weary the House that ]
do not read it all, but it is extremely well written. [' Bead.']
Well, then, the despatch goes on to say : —

* Such a practice is most injurious to the independence and
integrity of the States to which it is applied, because a terri-
tory so occupied can scarcely be left by the occupying force in
the same state in which it was when the occupation took place.
But, moreover, such a practice may recoil upon those who
adopt it, and, in the ever-varying course of events, it may be
most inconveniently applied to those who, having set the
example, had nattered themselves it never could be applied
to them.' (No. 4, 564.)

Well, the invasion of Schleswig is impending, and then ar
identic note is sent to Vienna and Berlin in these terms : —

' Her Majesty's Government having been informed that tht
Governments of Austria and Prussia have addressed a threaten- II
ing summons to Denmark, the undersigned has been instructec It
to ask for a formal declaration on the part of those Govern- 1
ments that they adhere to the principle of the integrity of th< I
Danish monarchy.' (No. 4, 565.)

And again, writing to Lord Bloomfield, the Secretary oil
State for Foreign Affairs speaks of the invasion as ' a bread
of faith which may entail upon Europe wide-spread calamities
But all these remonstrances were in vain. Notwithstanding
these solemn warnings, notwithstanding this evidence that ii
the German Courts the just influence of England was lowerec
the invasion of Schleswig takes place. And what is the conduc
of the Government ? They hurry again to Paris. They prc
pose a joint declaration of the non-German Powers. Eai

TOTE OF CENSUEE— DENMAKK AND GEEMANY, JULY 1864. 117

Russell writes to Lord Cowley in the middle of January. An
.answer was sent, I believe, the next day, the 14th, and this is
Lord Cowley's statement in reference to the opinion of the
French Government : —

' As to the four Powers impressing upon the Diet the
heavy responsibility that it would incur if, by any precipitate
measures, it were to break, the peace of Europe before the
•Conference which had been proposed by the British Govern-
ment for considering the means of settling the question
between Germany and Denmark, and thereby maintaining that
peace, can be assembled, M. Drouyn de Lhuys observed that he
had not forgotten that when Eussia had been warned by France,
Great Britain, and Austria of the responsibility which she was
incurring by her conduct towards Poland, Prince Gortschakoff
had replied, " that Russia was ready to assume that respon-
sibility before God and man." He, for one, did not wish to
provoke another answer of the same sort to be received with
the same indifference.' (No. 4, 536.)

The drama now becomes deeply interesting. The events are •
quick. That is the answer of the French Government ; and
on the next day Lord Russell writes to Lord Cowley to propose
concert and co-operation with France to maintain the treaty —
that is, to prevent the occupation of Schleswig. Lord Cowley
writes the next day to Lord Russell that the French Govern-
ment want to know what * concert and co-operation ' mean.1
Lord Russell at last, on January 24, writes to say that concert
and co-operation mean, 'if necessary, material assistance to
Denmark.' That must have been about the same time when
the cabinet was sitting to draw up Her Majesty's speech, assur-
ing Parliament that negotiations continued to be carried on in
the interest of peace. Now, Sir, what was the answer of the
French Government when, at last, England invited her to go
to war to settle the questions between Germany and Denmark ?
I will read the reply : —

' M. Drouyn de Lhuys, after recapitulating the substance
of my despatch of January 24 to your Excellency, explains very

1 This is the statement referred to at page 102 as having been made only a
week before the meeting of Parliament.

118 SPEECHES OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFJELD.

clearly the views of the French Government upon the subject..
The Emperor recognises the value of the London treaty as.
tending to preserve the balance of power and maintain the-
peace of Europe. But the Government of France, while paying
a just tribute to the purport and objects of the treaty of 1852,
is ready to admit that circumstances may require its modi-
fication. The Emperor has always been disposed to pay great
regard to the feelings and aspirations of nationalities. It is
not to be denied that the national feelings and aspirations of
Germany tend to a closer connection with the Germans of
Holstein and Schleswig. The Emperor would feel repugnance
to any course which should bind him to oppose in arms the-
wishes of Germany. It may be comparatively easy for England
to carry on a war which can never go beyond the maritime
operations of blockade and capture of ships. Schleswig and
England are far apart from each other. But the soil of Germany
touches the soil of France, and a war between France and
Germany would be one of the most burdensome and one of the
most hazardous in which the French Empire could engage.
Besides these considerations, the Emperor cannot fail to re-
collect that he has been made an object of mistrust and sus-
picion in Europe on account of his supposed projects of
aggrandisement on the Rhine. A war commenced on the
frontiers of Germany could not fail to give strength to these
unfounded and unwarrantable imputations. For these reasons,
the Government of the Emperor will not take at present any
engagement on the subject of Denmark. If, hereafter, the
balance of power should be seriously threatened, the Emperor
may be inclined to take new measures in the interest of France
and of Europe. But for the present the Emperor reserves to
his Government entire liberty.' (No. 4, 620.)

Well, Sir, I should think that, after the reception of thai
despatch, though it might have been very hard to convince the
Foreign Secretary of the fact, any other person might easil)
have suspected that the just influence of England was lowerec
in another quarter of Europe.

Sir, I have now brought events to the period when Parlia-
ment met, trespassing, I fear, too much on the indulgence o

VOTE OF CENSURE— DENMARK AND GERMANY, JULY 1864. 119

the House ; but honourable members will remember that, in
order to give this narrative to-day, it was necessary for me to
peruse 1,500 printed folio pages, and I trust I have done no
more than advert to those passages to which it was requisite to
direct attention in order that the House might form a complete
and candid opinion of the case. I will not dwell, or only for
the slightest possible time, on what occurred upon the meeting
of Parliament. Sir, when we met there were no papers : and I
remember that when I asked for papers there was not, I will
frankly say, on both sides of the House, a sufficient sense of the
very great importance of the occasion, and of the singular cir-
cumstance that the papers were not presented to us. It turned
out afterwards, from what fell from the Secretary of State in
another place, that it was never intended that the papers should
be presented at the meeting of Parliament. The noble lord at
the head of the Government treated the inquiry for papers in
a jaunty way, and said, * Oh ! you shall have papers, and I wisb
you joy of them.' That was the tone of the First Minister in
reference to the most important diplomatic correspondence ever
laid before Parliament since the rupture of the Treaty of
Amiens ; but we are all now aware of the importance of these
transactions. It was weeks — months almost — before we be-
came masters of the case, but during the interval the most
disastrous circumstances occurred, showing the increased peril
and danger of Denmark, and the successes of the invaders of
her territory. We all remember their entrance into Jutland.
We all remember the inquiries which were made on the sub-
ject and the assurances which were given. But it was impos-
sible for the House to pronounce any opinion, because the papers
were not before it, and the moment we had the papers, the
Conference was announced.

One word with respect to the Conference. I never was of
opinion that the Conference would arrive at any advantageous
result ; I could not persuade myself, after reading the papers,
that, whatever might be the cause, anyone seriously wished for
a settlement, except, of course, Her Majesty's ministers, and
they had a reason for it. The Conference lasted six weeks.
It wasted six weeks. It lasted as long as a carnival, and, like

120 SPEECHES OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD .

a carnival, it was an affair of masks and mystification. Our
ministers went to it as men in distressed circumstances go to
a place of amusement — to while away the time, with a con-
sciousness of impending failure. However, the summary of the
Conference is this, that Her Majesty's Government made two
considerable proposals. They proposed, first, the dismember-
ment of Denmark. So much for its integrity. They proposed,
in the second place, that the remainder of Denmark should be
placed under the joint guarantee of the Great Powers. They
would have created another Turkey in Europe, in the same
geographical relation, the scene of the same rival intrigues, and
the same fertile source of constant misconceptions and wars.
So much for the independence of Denmark. These two propo-
sitions having been made, the one disastrous to the integrity
and the other to the independence of Denmark, the Conference,
even with these sacrifices offered, was a barren failure.

And I now wish to ask — after having, I hope, with some
clearness and in a manner tolerably comprehensive, placed the
case before honourable members — what is their opinion of the
management of these affairs by Her Majesty's Government ?
I showed you that the beginning of this interference was a
treaty by which England entered into obligations as regards
Denmark not different from those of France. I have shown you,
on the evidence of the Secretary of State, that the present posi-
tion of France with respect to Denmark is one quite magnani-
mous, free from all difficulties and disgrace. I have shown you, I
think, what every man indeed feels, that the position of England
under this treaty, on the contrary, is most embarrassing, sur-
rounded with difficulties, and full of humiliation. I have stated
my opinion that the difference between the position of England
and that of France arose from the mismanagement of our
affairs. That appeared to me to be the natural inference and
logical deduction. I have given you a narrative of the manner
in which our affairs have been conducted, and now I ask you
v/hat is your opinion ? Do you see in the management of those
affairs that capacity, and especially that kind of capacity, that
is adequate to the occasion ? Do you find in it that sagacity,
that prudence, that dexterity, that quickness of perception, and

VOTE OF CENSURE— DENMARK AND GERMANY, JULY 1864. 121

those conciliatory moods which we are always taught to believe
necessary in the transaction of our foreign affairs ? Is there to
be seen that knowledge of human nature, and especially that
peculiar kind of science, most necessary in these affairs — an
acquaintance with the character of foreign countries and of the
chief actors in the scene ?

Sir, for my part I find all these qualities wanting ; and in
consequence of the want of these qualities, I see that three
results have accrued. The first is that the avowed policy of Her
Majesty's Government has failed. The second is, that our just
influence in the councils of Europe has been lowered. Thirdly,
in consequence of our just influence in the councils of Europe
being lowered, the securities for peace are diminished. These
are three results which have followed in consequence of the want
of the qualities to which I have alluded, and in consequence of
the management of these affairs by the Government. Sir, I
need not, I think, trouble the House with demonstrating that
the Government have failed in their avowed policy of upholding
the independence and integrity of Denmark. The first result
may be thrown aside. I come therefore to the second. By the
just influence of England in the councils of Europe I mean an
influence contra-distinguished from that which is obtained by
intrigue and secret understanding ; I mean an influence that
results from the conviction of foreign Powers that our resources
are great and that our policy is moderate and steadfast. Since
the settlement that followed the great revolutionary war,
England, who obtained at that time — as she deserved to do, for
she bore the brunt of the struggle — who obtained at that time
all the fair objects of her ambition, has on the whole followed
a Conservative foreign policy. I do not mean by a Conservative
foreign policy a foreign policy that would disapprove — still less
oppose — the natural development of nations. I mean a foreign
policy interested in the tranquillity and prosperity of the world,
the normal condition of which is peace, and which does not ally
itself with the revolutionary party of Europe. Other countries
have their political systems and public objects, as England had,
though they may not have attained them. She is not to look
upon them with unreasonable jealousy. The position of

122 SPEECHES OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD.

England in the councils of Europe is essentially that of a
moderating and mediatorial Power. Her interest and her policy
are, when changes are inevitable and necessary, to assist so that
these changes, if possible, may be accomplished without war,
or, if war occurs, that its duration and asperity may be lessened.
That is what I mean by the just influence of England in the
councils of Europe. It appears to me that just influence of
England in the councils of Europe has been lowered. Within
twelve months we have been twice repulsed at St. Petersburg.
Twice have we supplicated in vain at Paris. We have menaced
Austria, and Austria has allowed our menaces to pass her like
the idle wind. We have threatened Prussia, and Prussia has
defied us. Our objurgations have rattled over the head of the
German Diet, and the German Diet has treated them with
contempt.

Again, Sir, during the last few months there is scarcely a
form of diplomatic interference which has not been suggested
or adopted by the English Government — except a Congress.
Conferences at Vienna, at Paris, at London, all have been
proposed ; protocols, joint declarations, sole mediation, joint
mediation, identic notes, sole notes, united notes — everything
has been tried. Couriers from the Queen have been scouring
Europe with the exuberant fertility of abortive projects. After
the termination of a most important Conference, held in the
capital of the Queen, over which the Chief Minister of Her
Majesty's foreign relations presided, and which was attended
with all the pomp and ceremony requisite for so great an occasion,
we find that its sittings have been perfectly barren ; and the chief
ministers of the cabinet closed the proceedings by quitting the
scene of their exertions, and appearing in the two Houses of
Parliament to tell the country that they have no allies, and
that, as they have no allies, they can do nothing. Pardon
I must not omit to do justice to the exulting boast of the
Secretary of State, who, in the midst of discomfiture, fine
solace in the sympathy and politeness of the neutral Power
I do not grudge Lord Russell the sighs of Eussia or the smiles
of France ; but I regret that, with characteristic discretion, he
should have quitted the battle of the Conference only to take

VOTE OF CENSURE— DENMARK AND GERMANY, JULY 1864. 123

his seat in the House of Lords to denounce the perfidy of
Prussia, and to mourn, over Austrian fickleness. There wanted
but one touch to complete the picture, and it was supplied by
the noble lord the First Minister.

Sir, I listened with astonishment — I listened with astonish-
ment as the noble lord condemned the vices of his victim, and
inveighed at the last moment against the obstinacy of unhappy
Denmark. Denmark would not submit to arbitration. But on
what conditions did the German Powers accept it? And what
security had Denmark that if in the Conference she could not
obtain an assurance that the neutral Powers would support her
by force on the line of the Schlei — what security, I say, had
she that any other line would be maintained — an unknown line
by an unknown arbiter ? Sir, it does appear to me impossible
to deny, under these circumstances, that the just influence of
England in the councils of Europe is lowered. And now, I
ask, what are the consequences of the just influence of England
in the councils of Europe being lowered ? The consequences
are- — to use a familiar phrase in the despatches — ' most serious,*
because in exact proportion as that influence is lowered the
securities for peace are diminished. I lay this down as a great
principle, which cannot be controverted, in the management of
our foreign affairs. If England is resolved upon a particular
policy, war is not probable. If there is, under these circum-
stances, a cordial alliance between England and France,
war is most difficult ; but if there is a thorough under-
standing between England, France, and Russia, war is impos-
sible.

These were the happy conditions under which Her Majesty's
ministers entered office, and which they enjoyed when they
began to move in the question of Denmark. Two years ago,
and even less, there was a cordial understanding between
England, France, and Russia upon this question or any ques-
tion which might arise between Germany and Denmark.
What cards to play ! What advantages in the management
of affairs ! It seemed, indeed, that they might reasonably look
forward to a future which would justify the confidence of
Parliament ; when they might point with pride to what they

124 SPEECHES OF THE EAEL OF BEACONSFIELD.

had accomplished, and appeal to public opinion to support
them. But what has happened ? They have alienated Eussia,
they have estranged France, and then they call Parliament
together to declare war against Germany. Why, such a thing
never happened before in the history of this country. Nay,
more, I do not think it can ever happen again. It is one of
those portentous results which occur now and then to
humiliate and depress the pride of nations, and to lower our
confidence in human intellect. Well, Sir, as the difficulties
increase, as the obstacles are multiplied, as the consequences of
their perpetual errors and constant mistakes are gradually
becoming more apparent, you always find Her Majesty's
Government nearer war. As in private life we know it is the
weak who are always violent, so it is with Her Majesty's
ministers. As long as they are confident in their allies, as long
as they possess the cordial sympathy of the great Powers, they
speak with moderation, they counsel with dignity ; but, like all
incompetent men, when they are in extreme difficulty they can
see but one resource, and that is force.

When affairs cannot be arranged in peace you see them
turning first to St. Petersburg — that was a bold despatch which
was sent to St. Petersburg in January last, to ask Eussia to
declare war against Germany — and twice to Paris, entreating
that violence may be used to extricate them from the conse-
quences of their own mistakes. It is only by giving Govern-
ment credit, as I have been doing throughout, for the complete
sincerity of their expressions and conduct that their behaviour
is explicable. Assume that their policy was a war policy, and
it is quite intelligible. Whenever difficulties arise, their resolu-
tion is instantly to have recourse to violence. Every word they
utter, every despatch they write, seems always to look to a scene
of collision. What is the state of Europe at this moment?
What is the state of Europe produced by this management of
our affairs ? I know not what other honourable gentlemen may
think, but it appears to me most serious. I find the great
German Powers openly avowing that it is not in their capacity
to fulfil their engagements. I find Europe impotent to vindicate
public law because all the great alliances are broken down ; and

VOTE OF CENSURE— DENMARK AND GERMANY, JULY 1864. 125

I find a proud and generous nation like England shrinking with
the reserve of magnanimity from the responsibility of com-
mencing war, yet sensitively smarting under the impression that
her honour is stained — stained by pledges which ought not to
have been given, and expectations which I maintain ought
never to have been held out by wise and competent statesmen.

Sir, this is anarchy. It therefore appears to me obvious
that Her Majesty's Government have failed in their avowed
policy of maintaining the independence and integrity of Den-
mark. It appears to me undeniable that the just influence
of England is lowered in the councils of Europe. It appears
to me too painfully clear that to lower our influence is to
diminish the securities of peace. And what defence have we ?
If ever a criticism is made on his ambiguous conduct the
noble lord asks me, 'What is your policy?' My answer
might be my policy is the honour of England and the peace
of Europe, and the noble lord has betrayed both. I can
understand a minister coming to Parliament when there is a
question of domestic interest of the highest character for con-
sideration— such as the emancipation of the Catholics, the
principles on which our commercial code is to be established or
our representative system founded. I can quite understand —
although I should deem it a very weak step — a minister saying,
' Such questions are open questions, and we leave it to Parlia-
ment to decide what is to be our policy.' Parliament is in
possession of all the information on such subjects that is neces-
sary or can be obtained. Parliament is as competent to come
to a judgment upon the emancipation of any part of our sub-
jects who are not in possession of the privileges to which they
are entitled ; the principles on which a commercial code is to be
established or a representative system founded are as well
known to them as to any body of men in the world ; but it is
quite a new doctrine to appeal to Parliament to initiate a
foreign policy.

To initiate a foreign policy is the prerogative of the Crown,
exercised under the responsibility of constitutional ministers.
It is devised, initiated, and carried out in secrecy, and justly
and wisely so. What do we know as to what may be going

126 SPEECHES OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD.

on in Downing Street at this moment? We know not what
despatches may have been written, or what proposals may
have been made, to any foreign Power. 'For aught I know,
the noble lord this morning may have made another proposition
which may light up a general European war. It is for Parlia-
ment to inquire, to criticise, to support, or to condemn in ques-
tions of foreign policy ; but it is not for Parliament to initiate a
foreign policy in absolute ignorance of the state of affairs.
That would be to ask a man to set his house on fire. I will go
further. He is not a wise, I am sure he is not a patriotic, man
who, at a crisis like the present, would accept office on condi-
tions. What conditions could be made when we are in ignor-
ance of our real state ? Any conditions we could offer in a vote
of the House of Commons carried upon a particular point might
be found extremely unwise when we were placed in possession
of the real position of the country. No, Sir, we must not allow
Her Majesty's Government to escape from their responsibility.
That is at the bottom of all their demands when they ask,
* What is your policy ? ' The very first night we met — on
February 4 — we had the same question. Parliament was called
together by a ministry in distress to give them a policy. But
Parliament maintained a dignified and discreet reserve : and
you now find in what a position the ministry are placed to-night.
Sir, it is not for any man in this House, on whatever side he
sits, to indicate the policy of this country in our foreign rela-
tions— it is the duty of no one but the responsible ministers of
the Crown. The most we can do is to tell the noble lord what
is not our policy. We will not threaten and then refuse to act.
We will not lure on our allies with expectations we do not fulfil.
And, Sir, if ever it be the lot of myself or any public men with
whom I have the honour to act to carry on important negotia-
tions on behalf of this country, as the noble lord and his
colleagues have done, I trust that we least shall not carry them
on in such a manner that it will be our duty to come to Parlia-
ment to announce to the country that we have no allies, and
then declare that England can never act alone. Sir, those are
words which ought never to have escaped the lips of a British
minister. They are sentiments which ought never to have

VOTE OF CENSURE—DENMARK AND GERMANY, JULY 1864. 127

occurred even to his heart. I repudiate, I reject them. I
remember there was a time when England, with not a tithe of
her present resources, inspired by a patriotic cause, triumphantly
encountered a world in arms. And, Sir, I believe now, if the
occasion were fitting, if her independence or her honour were
assailed, or her empire endangered, I believe that England
would rise in the magnificence of her might, and struggle trium-
phantly for those objects for which men live and nations flourish.
But I, for one, will never consent to go to war to extricate
ministers from the consequences of their own mistakes. It is in
this spirit that I have drawn up this Address to the Crown. I
have drawn, it up in the spirit in which the Eoyal Speech was
delivered at the commencement of the session. I am ready to
vindicate the honour of the country whenever it is necessary,
but I have drawn up this Address in the interest of peace.
Sir, I beg leave to move the resolution of which I have given
notice.

128 SPEECHES OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD .

ABYSSINIAN EXPEDITION.

[Speech on proposing vote of thanks to Her Majesty's forces,
July 2, 1868. The motion was seconded by Mr. Gladstone, who
pronounced a high panegyric not only on the troops but also on the
conduct of the Government.]

ME. DISRAELI : I rise to move that the thanks of the
House be given to those who planned and accomplished
one of the most remarkable military enterprises of this century.
When the invasion of Abyssinia was first mooted, it was de-
nounced as a rash enterprise, pregnant with certain peril and
probable disaster. It was described indeed as one of the most
rash undertakings which had ever been recommended by a
Government to Parliament. The country was almost unknown
to us, or known only as one difficult of access, and very deficient
in all those supplies which are necessary for an army. Indeed,
the commander of this expedition had to commence his opera-
tions by forming his base on a desolate shore, and by creating
a road to the land he invaded through a wall of mountains.
Availing himself for this purpose of the beds of exhausted
torrents, he gradually reached a lofty table-land — wild and for
the most part barren — frequently intersected with mountain
ranges of great elevation, occasionally breaking into ravines
and gorges that were apparently unfathomable. Yet over this
country, for more than 300 miles, the command er-in-chief guided
and sustained a numerous host, composed of many thousands of
fighting men, as many camp followers, and vast caravans of
animals, bearing supplies, more numerous than both. Over
this land he guided cavalry and infantry, and — what is perhaps
the most remarkable part of the expedition — he led the
elephants of Asia, bearing the artillery of Europe, over African

ABYSSINIAN EXPEDITION, JULY 1868. 129

passes which might have startled the trapper and appalled the
hunter of the Alps. When he arrived at the base of this
critical rendezvous, he encountered no inglorious foe ; and if the
manly qualities of the Abyssinians sank before the resources of
our warlike science, our troops, even after that combat, had to
scale a mountain fortress, of which the intrinsic strength was
such that it may be fairly said it would have been impregnable
to the whole world had it been defended by the man by whom
it was assailed. But all these obstacles and all these difficulties
and dangers were overcome by Sir Robert Napier, and that
came to pass which ten years ago not one of us could have
imagined even in his dreams, and which must, under all the
circumstances, be an event of peculiar interest to an English-
man— the standard of St. George was hoisted on the mountains
of Rasselas.1 If we turn from the conduct of the expedition to
the character of the person who commanded it, I think it must
be acknowledged that rarely has an expedition been planned
with more providence and executed with more precision. In
connection with it everything seems to have been foreseen and
everything supplied. It would be presumptuous in me to
dwell on the military qualities of the commander ; but all must
recognise, and all may admire, the sagacity and the patience,
the temper and the resource, invariably exhibited. I shall,
however, perhaps be justified in calling attention to the rare
union of diplomatic ability and military skill in the conduct of
Sir Robert Napier. Indeed, I do not think a public man has
ever shown more discretion than he has done. Had it not
been for his management of men — not merely in the skilful

1 Mr. Justin M'Carthy, in his History of Our Own Times, says, the idea
that Johnson in Rasselas had in his eye the actual geographical mountains of
Abyssinia, made all England smile. Lord Stanley of Alderley has called
attention to the fact that the description of the mountain in which the
Abyssinian princes were confined, given by Francesco Alvarez, in his narrative
of the Portugese Embassy to Abyssinia (1520-1527), a work which his lordship
has translated, closely corresponds with Johnson's description of it in Rasselas,
and he remarks very justly that as Johnson's first work was a translation of
A Voyage to Abyssinia, by Lobo, a Portuguese Jesuit, it is clear that his atten-
tion had been drawn to that country. Boswell himself makes a similar
remark ; and it is pretty evident, therefore, that those who laughed at the
speech laughed too soon.

VOL. II. K

130 SPEECHES OF THE EAKL OF BEACONSFIELD.

handling of his troops on an exhausting march, but in the way
in which he moulded the dispositions of the native princes — the
result might have been different. And he moulded them to
his purpose without involving his country in any perilous con-
tract or engagement. Under these circumstances I am sure
the House will heartily offer and vote its thanks to this distin-
guished man. It has been said by the greatest soldier who ever
nourished, that — at least in modern times — that the thanks of
the House of Commons were a compliment the most appreciated
by military men, and that, next to the favour of their Sovereign,
the acknowledgment of their services by Parliament was the
reward which they most valued. I have no doubt that Sir
Eobert Napier is influenced by those feelings ; but the House
of Commons at this moment will remember that this is not the
first time nor the second that it has offered to him its thanks.
Happy is the man who has been twice thanked by his country !
By his splendid achievements in Abyssinia, Sir Robert Napier
has only fulfilled the promise of the plains of India, and con-
summated his exploits on the Chinese battlefield.

It is, I may add, not the least interesting part of our busi-
ness this evening to recognise the merits of another great
branch of Her Majesty's forces. The army and navy have
rarely acted together in the history of this country without
successful results ; but there have been, I think, few instances
in which they have mutually assisted each other more effectu-
ally, and in which their combined exertions have been attended
with greater success, than in the Abyssinian Expedition. I
need not remind the House how much depends on the skill
and efficiency with which the transport of troops and stores is
conducted in such an undertaking. But I may recall to the
recollection of the House, in order that they may clearly under-
stand them, the very great difficulties attending the expedition
in that respect, and the admirable manner in which those
difficulties were surmounted. The number of vessels employed
amounted to no fewer than 300, some of great tonnage collected
from all parts of Her Majesty's dominions, yet all brought at
the right moment to the right place, under the superintendence
of Commodore Heath. The exertions of the navy were not,

ABYSSINIAN EXPEDITION, JULY 1868. 131

however, limited merely to this important branch of public
service. The unknown waters of Abyssinia were buoyed and
lighted with a promptitude and certainty which cannot be too
highly praised, and which were of the utmost importance ; and
it was mainly owing to the great exertions of the navy, that
water, on which the success of the expedition greatly depended,
and the want of which for a moment threatened the successful
accomplishment of the expedition, was supplied.

The building of the piers and the establishing of the con-
densing machines were mainly owing to the exertions of the
navy, who on all occasions showed the utmost willingness to
devote their labours to the success of this great enterprise.
But it was not to the mere transport of troops, not to the mere
buoying and lighting of Annesley Bay, or the mere condensing
of water, that the duties and labours of the navy were limited.
They equipped and manned a most efficient corps, which took
a very active part in the invasion of Abyssinia — the Eocket
Brigade. They were present on that great march during which
Sir Eobert Napier handled his troops with so much dexterity—
a march requiring so much endurance on the part of our forces
— and they joined in that critical operation, the scaling of the
fortress of Magdala. Therefore, under these circumstances,
" the House will offer its most cordial and grateful thanks to
Commodore Heath, who commanded the naval force.

In acknowledging the great services of the distinguished
man who was the chief commander of the expedition, and of
the eminent officer who commanded the navy, we must not be
unmindful of the conduct of the men, both in the army and the
navy. I think we may fairly say that the conduct of the
troops and sailors was alike complete and admirable. There
have been instances, no doubt, of rapid marches and triumphant
fields, which have occasioned greater sensation at the moment,
in the history of modern times ; but if you look to the exhibi-
tion of military virtue, I doubt whether the qualities of patience,
endurance, and good temper, manifested under the most trying
circumstances, have ever been more fully exemplified. I doubt
whether the force of disciplined man was ever more successfully
asserted. There was shown that gallantry on which we can

K 2

132 SPEECHES OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD.

always count, and which enables our forces to meet any dangers
and difficulties ; but what was the most admirable, was the
endurance and docility which were exemplified by the troops,
and which enhanced the glorious result of the operations. The
House, therefore, will, I am sure, acknowledge in a manner
most grateful to the men, both of the army and navy, its sense
of their services, and will take means by which that sense
shall be made known to them through their respective com-
manding officers, making mention to each regiment the opinion
of the House with reference to their services and conduct.
There are many distinguished officers whose services they must
also shortly acknowledge, and whose names were inserted in the
resolution.

Before concluding, I would venture also to congratulate the
House not on the conduct of the expedition, of which I have
already treated, but on its character. When it was first an-
nounced that England was about to embark on a most costly
and perilous expedition, merely to vindicate the honour of our
Sovereign and to rescue from an unjust but remote captivity a
few of our fellow subjects, the announcement was received in
more than one country with something like mocking incredulity.
But we have asserted the purity of our purpose. In an age
accused, and perhaps not unjustly, of selfishness, and a too great
regard for material interests, it is something, in so striking and
significant a manner, for a great nation to have vindicated the
higher principles of humanity. It is a privilege to belong to a
country which has done such deeds. They will add lustre to
the name of this nation, and will beneficially influence the
future history of the world.

133

BLACK SEA CONFERENCE. February 24, 1871. !

[In October 1870 Europe was startled by the announcement that
one of the leading provisions of the Treaty of Paris of 1856 was
about to be abrogated by the sole action of that Power whose schemes
it was designed to check. Sir Andrew Buchanan, our representative
at St. Petersburg, was informed by Prince Gortchakoff that his
Imperial master did not intend to hold himself bound any longer by
the articles of the Treaty which secured the neutralisation of the
Black Sea. Sir Andrew Buchanan, after transmitting this intelligence
to England, waited at St. Petersburg for instructions to demand his
passports. The English Government, instead of adopting this course,
sent an Envoy to Prince Bismarck to ask his advice upon the subject.
He recommended a Conference ; and the Conference averted war by
conceding the demands of Russia. Mr. Disraeli, on the first night
of the session, had pointed out that the neutralisation of the Black
Sea was considered of the highest importance by the statesmen of
1855, and that the negotiation for peace at Vienna in the spring of
that year had been broken off exclusively on that ground. Mr. Glad-
stone seemed inclined to doubt whether Lord Clarendon and Lord
Palmerston had attached so much importance to this point as Mr.
Disraeli represented, but admitted subsequently that in regard to
Lord Clarendon he might have been mistaken, while Lord Palmer-
ston's own speech of July 6, 1855, sufficiently shows what that great
statesman thought about it.2 But this was not all. When Mr. Odo
Russell first saw Prince Bismarck he told the German Chancellor that
the question was of such a nature that, as it then stood, ' England, with
or without allies, would have to go to war with Russia.' Mr. Gladstone
declared that our Envoy had no authority for such a statement, and

1 This speech is reprinted from Hansard's Debates by permission of Mr.
Hansard.

2 If any further evidence is wanting it is supplied by Mr. Evelyn Ashley's
Life of Lord, Palmerston, vol. ii. pp. 85 and 105.

134 SPEECHES OF THE EAEL OF BEACONSFIELD.

added that, in his opinion, the -words had been wrongly attributed to
him, and had really been uttered by Prince Bismarck. A despatch
from Mr. Russell, received three weeks afterwards, declared that the
words were his own.]

8 IE, in the remarks — the few remarks and the fewer inquiries
— I am about to make respecting the Treaty of Paris of
1856, it is not my intention, or my wish, to enter into any
discussion as to the great principles of policy involved in that
subject. A more important theme could not engage, in my
opinion, the attention of Parliament ; and on a right apprecia-
tion of all the circumstances connected with it, I would venture
to say that the future power of this country greatly depends —
/and, more than that, the fortunes of no inconsiderable part of
the globe. But a subject of that kind is not to be treated in a
casual and desultory manner. An honourable member l has
x already given notice of his intention to bring the whole ques-
tion before the House, and I have no doubt that the House will
then enter into the discussion with that interest and attention
which the gravity of the question requires. The remarks that
I am about to make are rather preparatory to a discussion of
the matter. They will divest the theme of some controversial
details, which, if not now treated, would only embarrass that
greater discussion of policy which is involved in the notice that
has been given. Among other points which I should like to
decide to-night, would be to ascertain, for example, the avowed
object of the Conference that is now sitting in London. That
subject seems involved in an atmosphere of ambiguity. The
reasons which have been given by persons in authority for that
Conference appear to be perplexed, and, in a certain degree,
contradictory. The whole matter seems to be mixed up with
so much mysterious inconsistency, that I thought no time
should be lost in order that the House of Commons should more
precisely and accurately ascertain the state of affairs with re-
spect to it. I therefore took the earliest opportunity I could
of giving notice on that subject last Friday ; but I was not so
fortunate as to be able to bring the matter before the considera-
tion of the House.

1 Sir Charles Dilke.

ELACK SEA CONFERENCE, FEBRUARY 1871. 135

I had occasion to advert to the subject of the Treaty of
Paris of 1856 in some remarks I made on the first night of
this session, on the meeting of the House. They were neces-
sarily of an imperfect character, and, from the view which I
then took, it was not possible for me to enter into any detail
with respect to that particular treaty. I had one object, and
only one object, in making those remarks on the first night of
our meeting. I thought that, considering the great events —
almost unprecedented in importance — which had occurred in
the interval since the prorogation, it was not inexpedient to
draw the attention of the House to their great consequences.
I wanted to impress upon the House that in the interval, in
consequence of those events, there had been a great revolution
in all our diplomatic relations — that all the principles and
traditions with respect to external affairs had become obsolete
— that the balance of power in Europe was destroyed — that in
consequence of that balance of power being destroyed, there
had been a repudiation of treaties by several States, and that of
all existing countries the one which would most suffer by any
diminution of diplomatic morality and any violation of public
law would be our own. That was the object I had in making
those remarks, and, as they necessarily extended over a variety
of instances, it was not possible for me to dwell in any minute
detail upon any particular treaty. Nevertheless, with regard to
the treaty of 1856, 1 did venture to make more than one ob-
servation as to its character. I said distinctly with regard to
that treaty, that Russia, in repudiating the conditions of the
treaty which referred to the neutral character of the Black Sea,
had, in fact, repudiated the very gist of the whole subject —
the essence of the treaty ; and that, in fact, that was the ques-,
tion for which we had struggled and made great sacrifices, and
endured those sufferings which never can be forgotten.

Sir, I did not think it necessary to enter into any demon-
stration of such a position, even if I had the opportunity. I
knew well that I was speaking to a House of Commons, of which
even now a majority of the members were members of Parlia-
ment during the Crimean War, and were perfectly acquainted
'thijill the circumstances which preceded, accompanied, and ter-

1 36 SPEECHES OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD.

minated that great struggle. The House, therefore, I assumed
was perfectly aware that after that war had been waged one
whole year, Eussia intimated her desire to come to some under-
standing with her opponents. The Government of Austria in
1855 — the Government which, when I described as neutral, the
right honourable gentleman disputed the accuracy of that defi-
nition, but which I find mentioned in official documents of
1855 as a Government friendly to both parties, to the allies and
to Kussia — the Government of Austria interfered with a view
to bring about a pacification. I will treat the circumstances
with extreme brevity ; but it is necessary that I should place
them clearly before the House. After some communications it
was ascertained that peace might probably be successfully
negotiated on four points — those celebrated four points which
honourable gentlemen may still recollect. The first point
referred to the government of the principalities. The second
to the free navigation of the Danube. The third point was that
some means were to be invented for terminating the naval
supremacy of Kussia in the Black Sea. The fourth point re-
ferred to the future protection of the Christian subjects of the
Porte.

A Conference was held at Vienna — Russia having inti-
mated that she was prepared to negotiate on these four points
— that is to say, having admitted the principle which these
four points embodied. The result of the negotiations was
shortly this : The first two points, as framed by the allies, were,
after discussion, admitted by Russia. The fourth point, which
referred to the protection of the Christian subjects of the Porte,
was never brought under formal discussion at the Conference ;
but Russia privately intimated that she would accede to that
fourth proposition, and so no difficulty arose in that case. But
with regard to the third point, when the Conference had to
decide upon the means by which the naval supremacy of Russia
was to be terminated in the Black Sea, great difficulties arose.
It appears that Russia having admitted the principle of the
third point, the allies, with great courtesy, and I think wisdom,
suggested that Russia should herself propose the me
which that result should be attained. But, after waith ;

BLACK SEA CONFERENCE, FEBRUARY 1871. 137

instructions from St. Petersburg, the Eussian negotiators
declined to do that ; and, therefore, the proposition of the allies
for establishing the neutral character of the Black Sea was
brought forward, and that proposition, after considerable delay,
and after waiting again for instructions from St. Petersburg,
was utterly rejected by Russia.

The state of affairs, then, was this — Russia had consented
formally to the first two propositions, and privately to the fourth.
The government of the principalities, the free navigation of
the Danube, the due protection of the Christian subjects of the
Porte, not by one Power, but by all the Powers — these points
were all conceded ; and the point upon which the negotiations for
peace were broken off was the neutral character of the Black Sea.
A great responsibility, therefore, rested upon the negotiators of
the allies, and especially upon the English Government, which
took so eminent a lead in these negotiations. Was the war to be
continued ? Was immense treasure to be further expended, and
great sacrifices of human life to be incurred, for this unsettled
point — the neutralisation of the Black Sea ? It was an awful
responsibility, no doubt, to decide on this point ; but respon-
sibility in a free State is not, or should not be, a source of annoy-
ance to individuals, but rather of honourable pride ; and it
would be well for the House to remember, so far as this country
is concerned, who were the statesmen upon whom this great
responsibility peculiarly devolved. The Prime Minister of this
country then was Lord Palmerston ; who, however some of his
last feats of foreign policy may be questioned, must be admitted
by all to be a man who had a most vigorous perception of what
were the interests and duties of this country, and who at that
time was unquestionably in the full exercise' of his powers, and
with no apparent diminution of that decision and that spirit
with which he had always conducted our foreign affairs. The
Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs was that distinguished
obleman whom the right honourable gentleman (Mr. Glad-
stone) invited more than two years ago to^ assist him by his
experience — Lord Clarendon. The negotiator who represented
this country at Vienna was a nobleman who was a member of
this House for nearly half a century — who has the largest expe-

138 SPEECHES OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD .

rience of public affairs of any individual of our time, who has
occupied every office, from Paymaster of the Forces to President
of the Council, and who had been for seven years Prime Minister
of England — Earl Kussell.

These were the men upon whom, so far as this country
was concerned, peculiarly devolved the responsibility of deciding
whether, under the circumstances, the war should be pursued.
They did not hesitate, in order to obtain the neutrality of the
Black Sea, as it is expressed in the Treaty of Paris, negotiated
the following year, to recommend their Sovereign to prose-
cute the war, and not to cease until the allies had effected
a settlement similar to that which Russia had rejected. Well,
the war continued another year— and the House and the
country have never forgotten the circumstances — great glory
and honour to the allies and to Eussia also, much exhibition of
heroic conduct on both sides, and on both sides, no doubt,
unprecedented suffering. In the course of another year Russia
was exhausted, and the Treaty of Paris was negotiated. And
what was that treaty ? Russia was exhausted ; but the allies,
victorious and triumphant, though they had incurred immensely
increased expenditure, and endured aggravated sacrifices of life,
did not demand from Russia the Crimea, which they might
have restored to Turkey. They did not demand any indemnity
for the expenses of the war. All the points in that treaty,
except the neutrality of the Black Sea, had been offered by
Russia at Vienna in the preceding year, and therefore had
, been obtained by our negotiators in the first instance ; but as
I a full satisfaction, as a settlement that completely justified the
great exertions and sacrifices that had been incurred, as a
settlement which they believed would secure the peace of the
world, so far as that portion of it was concerned, they insisted
that the neutrality of the Black Sea should be accomplished.

Now, Sir, having touched — I hope accurately — upon these
important facts, and recalled them — I trust not without con-
venience as regards future discussion, I would venture to ask,
Was I not justified in my statement the first night of the
session that the neutrality of the Black Sea was the very basis
and gist of the Peace of Paris of 1856 — that it was the main

BLACK SEA CONFEKENCE, FEBKUAEY 1871. 139

object of the war, the great result for the accomplishment of
wtiich this country and France and their allies made the vast
sacrifices of life and treasure now so freely acknowledged ?
That being the case, I asked myself, Had we any reason to
believ7e that the policy of England had ever changed? I
believed myself it had not changed, I believe that it cannot
change. But when I spoke the first night of the session we
were not in possession of papers which have since been placed
upon the table. Now, what do these . papers show with
reference to this policy ? We find in those papers a despatch
from the Queen's ambassador at St. Petersburg; and what
does he say ? Sir Andrew Buchanan writes to the Secretary of
State, Lord Grranville, and mentions that he had long foreseen
that Russia would attempt a revision of the treaty of 1856,
and that he had frequently expressed that opinion to his lord-
ship and to the late Earl of Clarendon. From these papers it
appears that what Sir Andrew Buchanan had long foreseen did
at last occur, and, though he had for some time avoided touch-
ing on the subject with the Russian minister, he is at last
obliged to encounter the disclosure which he had so long
dreaded. And what were the expressions which were used on
that occasion by Sir Andrew Buchanan to Prince Gortchakoff?
He stated to the Russian minister that he had the most serious
apprehensions as to the light in which the report would be
viewed by Her Majesty's Government, and that he should
expect to receive orders immediately to ask for his passports
and to quit St. Petersburg.

Now, I ask the House to bear in mind that Sir Andrew
Buchanan is one of the most experienced members of the dip-
lomatic service. He has been engaged to my knowledge for
forty years in posts of important trust; for I recollect that
when I was at Constantinople in 1830 he was, if I mistake
not, Secretary to the Embassy ; and he is a man of ability
and sagacity, as well as of discretion. Can it be doubted,
then, that, having frequently expressed to Lord Granville and
Lord Clarendon his apprehension of the danger which he fore-
saw, these distinguished statesmen had furnished him with
instructions as to the tone he should adopt when the disclosure

140 SPEECHES OF THE EAEL OF BEACONSFIELD.

was made, and the language which he should use ? And that
the language used by Sir Andrew Buchanan was language
strictly in accordance with the instructions which he received,
no one who knows him can for a moment doubt. That is a
proof, therefore, in these papers that the policy of England,
with reference to this question, had not undergone a change.
But they furnish us, on that head, with another proof. Her
Majesty's ministers in, the difficult position in which they were
placed through the repudiation by Eussia of the condition of
the Treaty of Paris which refers to the Black Sea, took a step
which, on this occasion, I will not criticise. I reserve any such
criticism for that larger debate which is impending — but I may
now at least observe that it seems to me to be one of the most
remarkable steps ever taken by a Government. They resolved
on sending a special envoy to Count Bismarck.

Now, I am not quarrelling with the Government, because,
in a position of great difficulty, they decided on sending a special
envoy to what may be called the Prussian Court. I can easily
conceive adequate reasons why Her Majesty's ambassador at
Berlin should not leave the seat of his labours. Nor am I here
to quarrel with the selection made by the Government for the
post. It is said that one of the tests of competency to fill the
office of Prime Minister is the capacity for fixing on the right
man for any public appointment, and I do not challenge for a
moment the propriety of selecting Mr. Odo Russell in this
particular instance. He may not have the experience of Sir
Andrew Buchanan, and for a reason with which I am sure he
will find no fault — because he is a younger man. But Mr.
Odo Eussell has, nevertheless, had great experience in diplo-
macy. He has had questions entrusted to him at a post where
they were both critical and delicate ; and, so far as I am
acquainted with his conduct, has, upon all occasions, proved
himself to be a man to whose judgment and knowledge might
be safely committed the interests of his country. Mr. Odo
Russell, moreover, was not abroad — and that was an additional
reason why he should be selected as a special envoy to Ver-
sailles. He had been recalled from his diplomatic appoint
ment, and promoted to a post in the Foreign Office of th(

BLACK SEA CONFEKENCE, FEBEUAEY 1871. 141

highest trust and importance. He was the right hand man of
the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, and was in daily communi-
cation with his chief. Now, honourable gentlemen must see at
once of how much consequence it is, when you have a special
envoy who is to execute, under extraordinary circumstances,
business of the most delicate and difficult kind, he should be a
man with whom the minister is in personal connection, so that he
should not have to depend merely on written instructions pre-
pared for the special occasion ; but an envoy who — fresh from
frequent intercourse with the Secretary of State and the head
of the Government — should set out upon his mission thoroughly
impressed and impregnated with their policy and their views,
and thoroughly acquainted with their resources to meet all
contingencies. Under such circumstances, we could hope and
expect that its interests would be faithfully represented and
attended to.

Now, what happened in the case of Mr. Odo Russell, our
special envoy under such favourable circumstances, and person-
ally so well qualified as he was for the post ? He left England
late in November, and it was some time before he succeeded in
arriving at Versailles, owing to the difficulties of travelling
through the seat of war. He, however, arrived at Versailles at
last, and lost no time in placing himself in communication with
Count Bismarck. There is, in these papers, an interesting
narrative of what occurred on that memorable occasion. Mr.
Odo Russell was twice closeted with Count Bismarck in the
course of the day. He saw him in the morning, and, in conse-
quence of what then passed, Count Bismarck communicated
with St. Petersburg. He saw him again at ten o'clock in the
evening, and was closeted with him until midnight. Now,
Mr. Odo Russell having, after much trouble and pains, obtained
the interview which he sought for, did, I have no doubt, full
justice to his mission, and spoke with that adroitness and
judgment which became the representative of the interests of
this country, instructed by the highest authorities of the State.
Well, what did Mr. Odo Russell say to Count Bismarck ? He
pressed for a settlement of a question which, as he informs us,
he had frankly proved to Count Bismarck was of a nature, in its

142 SPEECHES OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD.

present state, to compel us, with or without allies, to go to war
with Eussia. I ask the House again, Was I not justified in the
statement which I made on the first night of the session, that
the question of the Black Sea was the real question which
was involved in the Treaty of Paris ? Have I not proved to
the House that this was the view of eminent statesmen like
Lord Palmerston, Lord Clarendon, and Lord Eussell, who were
engaged in the negotiations at Paris and Vienna ? And have
we not primd facie evidence that on the 22nd of November last
this was the confirmed policy of the English Cabinet — the policy
of such men as Lord Clarendon and Lord Granville ? I was, I
must confess, astonished to learn, having these papers before
us, from the highest authority, that Mr. Odo Kussell made the
representation to which I have just referred to Count Bismarck
without the sanction of the Grovernment. I have heard many
remarkable things this session, which, although it has but just
commenced, promises to be rife with interest. We heard last
night, for example, that on Monday next a secret committee
is to be moved for, in order to discover for the Government
how to govern regenerated Ireland. How to govern regenerated
Ireland ! when we thought that we had employed the last two
sessions in perfecting that exalted and sublime legislation
which was not only to cure the evils of the past, but which
even anticipated the remedies for the future ! It seems to me,
I must confess, that our Irish legislation is somewhat like our
Crimean treaties, which assume a different character to that
contemplated when they were originated. I heard also this
session — and I look upon it as one of the most remarkable
things of which I have any recollection — that a functionary l
who sought to publish a correspondence connected with his
department, which he not only believed to be necessary to
vindicate his character, but to be of the greatest interest to

1 Sir Spencer Robinson, who was Controller of the Navy at the time of the
loss of the ' Captain.' A dispute arose between himself and Mr. Childers,
then First Lord of the Admiralty, as to the responsibility for this disaster.
It ended in the dismissal of Sir Spencer ; and when he asked Mr. Gladstone
to be allowed to publish the correspondence, he received the above answer,
for which, however, it is only fair to say that Mr. Gladstone had his own
explanation.

BLACK SEA CONFERENCE, FEBRUARY 1871. 143

the country, received permission to do so, provided he changed
the dates. [Mr. Gladstone : Hear, hear !] Yes ; that was a
thing that certainly surprised me, and I am glad to see that
the right honourable gentleman agrees with me at least on
that point.

Secret committees and such frank permissions are certainly
surprising things ; but I cannot help regarding it as more
surprising still that a special envoy should be selected at
such a critical moment — himself admirably adapted, as nobody
will deny, for the post, and with the immense advantage of
being fresh from interviews with Ministers of State, and of
receiving in person instructions from his chief — and that he
should be sent on one of the most trying occasions not only in
the history of his own country, but of Europe, not farther than
Versailles, and should, the very first moment he encounters the
great opponent with whom he had to deal, immediately take a
course which his instructions did not justify. [Mr. Gladstone :
I never said that.'] The right honourable gentleman will,
perhaps, by-and-by notice the observations which I am making.
I heard what fell from him on a former night, and I was
certainly under the impression that — to use a phrase which,
though vernacular, is perhaps scarcely fit to be employed
within these walls — Mr. Odo Kussell was ' thrown over ' by the
right honourable gentleman. If it be a mistake, I believe it is
a mistake which" was shared by both sides of the House. I
understood the right honourable gentleman distinctly to say, in
answer to a distinct inquiry, that Mr. Odo Eussell had no
authority to make that representation.

There is one more observation I wish to make with regard to
Mr. Odo Russell. For a special envoy to declare to a foreign
minister that, with or without allies, we were prepared to go to
war fora particular object, is one of the most decided announce-
ments ever made upon political affairs. Admit that he had no
authority to make the declaration — an admission which is over-
whelming in its incredibility — why was no despatch written by
the Secretary of State to contradict the declaration ? Why was
no printed record made with the frankness becoming an English
Government, so that the indiscretion of the special agent should

144 SPEECHES OF THE EAEL OF BEACONSFIELD.

not be concealed from us ? Why do we not learn that, at the
moment when Her Majesty's Government heard of such an
announcement, the special envoy was told by a flash of light-
ning that he had exceeded his authority ? Sir, there is not a
line, not a scrap, not a jot to this effect ; and until the inquiry
was made and the answer given by the right honourable
gentleman, no one doubted for a moment, looking to the
character of the official papers, that the declaration was made
by authority, and that Mr. Odo Russell was sent to Count
Bismarck to make it.

I have now, Sir, placed before the House these remarks,
the object of which is to show, first, that I was entirely justi-
fied in the description I gave of the condition relating to the
neutrality of the Black Sea in the Treaty of Paris on the first
night of the session — that it was the cardinal point of British
policy ; that it was always so considered ; that for it, and for it
alone, the war was continued, and the greatest sacrifices made.
I think I have also shown, from the papers furnished us by the
Government, that until within a brief space — which we shall
probably hear more about on another occasion — the cabinet
was faithful and firm to this policy, and that men of the vast
experience of our ambassador at the Court of St. Petersburg,
and the great ability of our special envoy at the Court of
Versailles, were instructed — and, I think, admirably instructed
— how to treat such a violation of the law of nations and of
public morality. And now, Sir, having, I hope, placed this
matter fairly before the House, let me advert to the remark-
able manner in which my observations upon that head were
met by the right honourable gentleman on the first night of
the session. I had endeavoured to recall to the recollection of
the House the vital importance of the neutralisation of the
Black Sea. I did not enter into any proof of a policy which I
believe was supported by the people of this country, and by
the majority of the House, and upon which it appeared to me
it was then far from necessary to enter into any controversy.
I was content to confine myself to an opinion as to the vit
importance of the neutralisation of the Black Sea- What saic
the right honourable gentleman ? Lest I may be accused of

BLACK SEA CONFERENCE, FEBRUARY 1871. 145

inaccuracy, I avail myself of a memorandum containing, I be-
lieve, an accurate report of the statement made by the right
honourable gentleman. He entirely joined issue with me as to
the vital importance of the neutralisation of the Black Sea.
He said : ' That was never, as far as I know, the view of
the British Government.' The right honourable gentleman
said : —

<In this House, in the year 1856, I declared my confident
conviction that it was impossible to maintain the neutralisa-
tion of the Black Sea. I do not speak from direct communica-
tion with Lord Clarendon ; but I have been told since his death

lat he never attached value to that neutralisation. Again, I
do not speak from direct communication, but I have been told
that Lord Palmerston always looked upon the neutralisation as
m arrangement which might be maintained and held together
for a limited number of years, but which, from its character, it
fas impossible to maintain as a permanent condition for a

reat settlement of Europe.'

Now, Sir, upon these startling observations of the right hon-
3urable gentleman I will make one or two remarks. And, first,
when the right honourable gentleman says the vital import-
ance of the neutralisation of the Black Sea was never, as far
as he knew, the view of the British Government, and that he
had declared his confident conviction in 1856 that it would be
impossible to maintain it, I would observe that the right
honourable gentleman — unintentionally of course — conveyed
an erroneous impression to the House by allowing himself to
mix up his own individual opinions with those of the British
Government. [Mr. Gladstone : ' No ; I do not admit it.']
Does the right honourable gentleman complain of the accu-
racy of the report ? Of course, I shall take any explanation
which the right honourable gentleman has to offer, and if he
said exactly the reverse of what is attributed to him, no one
will congratulate the House and the country more sincerely
than I shall. But, Sir, when the right honourable gentleman
talks of the views of the British Government and brings for-
ward himself as an authority, allow me to inform the House —
because some time has elapsed, and we fortunately have a good
VOL. n. L

146 SPEECHES OF THE EAKL OF BEACONSFIELD,

many young members among us, and some old ones — that
when the right honourable gentleman made this speech against
the importance of the neutralisation of the Black Sea in 1856
he was not a minister of the Crown, nor was he the leader of
the Opposition. The right honourable gentleman was con-
nected in this House with a minute coterie of distinguished
men, who had no following in the country at the time. They
were condemned by the country on account of their conduct
with respect to this very question of the Black Sea and Turkish
affairs generally.

Sightly or wrongly — I will not enter into the question
now — the country was convinced that the Crimean War was
occasioned by the lukewarmness and the hesitation of this
small body of distinguished men. But of these distinguished
men the most unpopular in the country was the right honour-
able gentleman; because, when war was inevitable and was
even declared by the cabinet of Lord Aberdeen, the right
honourable gentleman at that time having the control of the
finances, it became necessary that he should propose the ways
and means for carrying on the war, and the country was of
opinion that the proposals of the right honourable gentle- -
man were not adequate to the occasion, and were not such [as
the honour and interest of England demanded. The people of
England remembered a celebrated item moved by the right
honourable gentleman in Committee of Supply — namely, a vote
proposed by him, in a spirit of ironical finance, for the despatch
of Her Majesty's Guards to Malta and back again.1 They
never forgot and never forgave that item. They foresaw then,-
with an instinct of Englishmen which it is impossible to de-
ceive, that we were about to prosecute a war in a spirit which
must bring calamity and disaster upon the country. Such was
the position of the right honourable gentleman ; and, there-
fore, the House must not be influenced by his statement of the
views of the British Government of that time. He did not
represent the British Government. He represented no party
in this House and no party in this country.

I come now to the statement of the right honourable gen-
1 Financial statement, March 6, 1854. Hansard, vol. 31, p. 368.

BLACK SEA CONFERENCE, FEBEUAEY 1871. 147

tleman about Lord Clarendon and Lord Palmerston. It was a
very responsible thing, I ventured to say, to advise the con-
tinuance of the war in 1855. But almost as responsible a
thing, in my opinion, is it to impute to statesmen of great
eminence, and now unfortunately departed, opinions not only
which they did not hold, but which were contrary to their con-
victions, which contradicted their whole policy, and which
would intimate that public men of the highest distinction
who proposed a policy, in enforcing which the treasure of the
country was expended without stint, and the most precious
lives of the country were sacrificed, were laughing in their
sleeves at the excitement of the nation. I would make one
remark respecting those extraordinary quotations of the
opinions of Lord Clarendon and Lord Palmerston as to the
neutralisation of the Black Sea. Nothing can be more incon-
venient and injurious to the privileges of this House than such
quotations by ministers of the private opinions of their col-
leagues— and especially if those colleagues are deceased.
Why, we are so punctilious on these matters that a minister
is not even permitted to quote from a despatch without laying
it upon the table. There would be an end to all freedom and
force of discussion if it were in the power of a minister to get
up and say : ' You have taken such and such a view of affairs,
but your facts are wrong,' and thus to carry away the House by
some declaration of which we had no proof whatever. Every-
one must feel that we cannot be too rigid in the application of
our rules on such matters ; and even if the right honourable
gentleman was convinced that these were the private opinions
of Lord Clarendon and of Lord Palmerston, he was not justi-
fied in referring to the private conversations of ministers who
are since dead.

I am not here to vindicate the honour either of Lord
Clarendon or of Lord Palmerston. There are those in this
House connected with Lord Clarendon by blood, and who,
moreover, resemble him in his capacity of conducting public
affairs. An eminent relative of Lord Clarendon has a seat
in this House, and upon him should devolve the duty of
defending the noble earl's memory from such misstatements.

L 2

148 SPEECHES OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD.

Nor am I here to vindicate the honour of Lord Palmerston ;
but I may make one observation with regard to that distin-
guished man, because it may throw some little light on these
painful disclosures which have agitated and surprised so many
persons. We have also had it stated in ' another place ' that
Lord Palmerston made some light observation to a diplomatist
who spoke to him on the subject of our policy with regard to
the Black Sea. Now, everybody who knew Lord Palmerston
well, knew this of him — that with a smiling countenance he
often evaded inconvenient discussions on serious affairs. Lord
Palmerston was a man who, when most serious, availed him-
self very often of the weapon of banter ; and not merely the
diplomatist in question — and I do not seek to inquire who he
is — but many diplomatists, if they would only acknowledge it,
would confess that when they have wearied Lord Palmerston
with their grave assiduity, or have attempted to pump Lord
Palmerston with their practised adroitness, he has often un-
sheathed his glittering foil and has soon disarmed and disabled
inconvenient opponents. Lord Palmerston was a master of
banter, and disliked discussion of grave matters when not in
his cabinet or in this House. But I cannot refrain from re-
cording nay solemn conviction that the policy of Lord Palmer-
ston with respect to maintaining the neutrality of the Black
Sea never wavered for a moment, and that nothing but secur-
ing that great condition of the Treaty of Paris would have
reconciled him to the comparative leniency of the other
terms.

Now, Sir, I hope I have vindicated myself from the charge
that I was not authorised in the description which I gave the
first night of the session, of the importance of the neutrality
of the Black Sea ; that I was not justified in saying that it was
the cardinal principle of the settlement of 1856; that these
were the opinions of Lord Palmerston, Lord Clarendon, and
Lord Russell ; that they broke up the negotiations at Vienna ;
and that the war was renewed, or rather continued, solely with
the view to maintain that condition. I think I have showr
that the policy then adopted by Her Majesty's Government
was the policy not only of Lord Clarendon, but that it rnusl

BLACK SEA CONFERENCE, FEBRUARY 1871. 149

also have been that of Lord Granville up to a very recent
period. Now, Sir, I have only one observation to make upon
the Conference. Why a Conference was called is to me a
matter difficult to comprehend, and I hope we shall learn
clearly to-night what its object is. I think myself that, under
any circumstances, a Conference would have been a mistake.
But if the Conference had been called to vindicate the honour
and the rights of England and of Europe, I should have
thought it, though a hazardous, at least a bold and loyal course.
But why a Conference should be called — a Conference which
Russia did not require — for Russia only really initiated an
abstract outrage of public morality, and only theoretically
violated a treaty, and therefore it was quite unnecessary to do
anything, even if you felt you were not prepared to resist her
when she put her policy into practice — I say why, under such
circumstances, a Conference should be called merely to register
the humiliation of our country passes my understanding.

But there was one declaration made by the Secretary of State 1
which may, perhaps, have some light thrown upon it by that
consummate master of language 2 who has several times con-
tradicted me in the course of this speech, and who will very
likely follow the same course when he rises on his legs. The
declaration was made by a Secretary of State wh9 was at one
time ready to go. to war with or without allies, but whose policy
changes in a moment, and the policy being changed, a satisfac-
tory and plausible reason is offered to the British people. The
Conference is to be held, but upon this understanding — there
is to be ' no foregone conclusion ' 3 on the subject. That state-
ment was generally accepted. What was the weight and value
of that condition I will not now attempt to ascertain ; but, at
any rate, it meant something. If it was not to influence
events, still there was a semblance of dignity about it. And
now, if the Conference was to be held without any foregone
conclusion by any of the Powers upon the question of the neu-
trality of the Black Sea, I want to know how the right honour-

1 Lord Granville. - Mr. Gladstone.

3 Words used by Lord Granville at the Conference, Jan. 17, 1871. They
are to be found in the first Protocol.

•f$'\

v,« '-*'** 1

»».,. • ..*•
v • *•«%-•

150 SPEECHES OF THE EAEL OF BEACONSFIELD.

able gentleman reconciles that position with the statement he
made the first night that Parliament met, in which he proved
that there was a foregone conclusion — a foregone conclusion in
the mind of the Prime Minister, and that, a foregone conclu-
sion against the honour and interests of his country ?

151

BULGARIAN ATROCITIES. August 11, 1876.

[In the summer of 1875 disturbances broke out in the province
• of Bosnia and in the Herzegovina occasioned by the exactions of the
tithe farmers. News reached this country in the following year that
great outrages had been committed by the Turkish soldiers in the
suppression of the insurrection. And on April 10 Mr. W. E. Forster
asked Mr. Disraeli in the House of Commons whether it was true
' that a large number of Bulgarian girls had been sold publicly as
slaves, and also that a very large number of Bulgarians were then
undergoing torture in prison.' Mr. Disraeli, in the course of his
reply, said he doubted whether many prisoners were undergoing
torture, as the Turks were an Oriental people, who ' generally ter-
minate their connection with culprits in a more expeditious manner.'
This sentence was imputed to him as ' levity,' and was made the
foundation of many most impassioned attacks. On August 1 1 the
subject was renewed by Mr. Evelyn Ashley, when Mr. Disraeli spoke
as follows : — ]

SIR, — The honourable gentleman the .member for Poole
(Mr. Evelyn Ashley) has called attention to an impor-
tant and interesting subject to-night in a manner very
irregular, I think, not to say unprecedented. If the honour-
able gentleman really believes that the conduct of Her
Majesty's Government with respect to these transactions and
of the Queen's ambassador is deserving of censure and disappro-
bation, I think he ought to have come forward with a dis-
tinct motion on the subject. Although we are on the point
of prorogation, he knows enough of me to know that my advice
the Sovereign would be not to prorogue Parliament if he
lesired to challenge our policy ; and even in a House like this,
if he had given notice, the opinion of the House of Commons
might be taken about it. It appears to me to be a course
scarcely, I should think, pleasant to a man of a mind such as I
•believe is possessed by the honourable gentleman, to avail him-

152 SPEECHES OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD.

self of a parliamentary privilege, which I do not care to admit
or deny, to insinuate an offensive opinion upon the advisers of
the Crown and upon the conduct of absent ambassadors, when
he knows we have no means, in the present state of affairs, of
testing the opinion of Parliament or of the country upon the
subject. Let me at once place before the House what I
believe is the true view of the circumstances which principally
interest us to-night, for after the Rhodian l eloquence to which
we have just listened, it is rather difficult for the House to see
clearly the point which is before it. The Queen's ambassador
at Constantinople, who has at all times no easy duty to fulfil,,
found himself at the end of April and in the first three weeks
of May in a position of extreme difficulty and danger. Affairs
in Constantinople never had assumed — at least in our time,
certainly — a more perilous character. It was difficult to ascer-
tain what was going to happen. But that something was going
to happen, and something of a character which might disturb
the relations of the Porte with all the Powers of Europe, and
might even bring about a revolution, the effect of which would
be felt in distant countries, there was no doubt. The House
is well acquainted with the train of strange incidents which
occurred, all of them events that tried the intelligence, the
vigilance, and the thought of our ambassador there to the
utmost ; and, in circumstances of great difficulty, I think he
showed an intelligence, a courage, and a calmness which were
highly beneficial to the course of public affairs. The honour-
able and learned gentleman who has just addressed us in so
learned and powerful an oration (laughter) ; well, I speak what
I feel ; I look upon him as one of the chief orators of the
House — although he sometimes lavishes, as he has done on
this occasion, his great powers upon subjects which are not
quite adequate to the treatment. In the present instance the
honourable and learned gentleman has made one assumption
throughout his speech — that there has been no communication
whatever between the Queen's ambassador at Constantinople and
Her Majesty's ministers upon the subject in discussion ; that

1 From Sir W. Harcourt, who had just sat down. The Ehodian school of
rhetoric was more florid than the Attic.

BULGARIAN ATROCITIES, AUGUST 1876. 153-

we never heard of these affairs until the newspapers published
accounts, which were brought under the notice of both Houses
of Parliament, and from that assumption he draws all those
inferences so flattering to Her Majesty's Government which
have been recently communicated to the House.

The state of the facts is the reverse. From the very first
period that these transactions occurred — from the very com-
mencement— the ambassador was in constant communication

rith Her Majesty's Government. (No, no!) Why, that may
>e proved by the papers on the table. Throughout the months
May and June the ambassador is constantly referring to
the atrocities occurring in Bulgaria, and to the repeated pro-
tests which he is making to the Turkish Government, and
informing Her Majesty's Government of interviews and conver-

itions with the Grand Vizier on that subject.

The honourable and learned gentleman says that when
questions were addressed to me in this House I was 'perfectly
lorant of what was taking place. But that is exactly the
question which we have to decide to-night. I say we were not

perfectly ignorant of what was taking place, and that is the very

rint I am now calling attention to. I say, during all this

jriod we were — I will not say daily, but constantly receiving
communications from Her Majesty's ambassador informing us
3f what was occurring in Bulgaria, and apprising the Govern-

lent of the steps he took to counteract evil consequences.
What did take place was this: When certain statements were
le in this House we said we were in constant communication

rith Sir Henry Elliot, and that the information which reached
did not warrant the statements that were made. I agree

rith my honourable friend the Under Secretary of State for
Foreign Affairs (Mr. Bourke), who has on two occasions
Idressed himself to the subject with great knowledge and
ability, that even the slightest estimate of the horrors that
occurred in Bulgaria is quite sufficient to excite the indignation
of the country and of Parliament ; but when you come to say
we were ignorant of all that was occurring, and did nothing to
counteract it, because we said in answer to questions that the
information which had reached us did not warrant the state-

154 SPEECHES OF THE EAEL OF BEACONSFIELD.

ments that were quoted in the House — these are two entirely
different questions; and therefore it becomes us to consider
what were the statements made in this House.

In the newspaper which had been referred to, the first account
was, if I recollect aright, that 30,000 or 32,000,persons had been
slain ; that 10,000 persons were in prison. (Mr. W. E. Forster :
There is no mention of that in the first statement.) Well, it
may have been in the second that it was made. It was also
stated that 1,000 girls had been sold in the open market, that
forty girls had been burnt alive in a stable, and that cartloads of
human heads had been paraded through the streets of the cities
of Bulgaria : these were some of, though not all, the statements
made, and I was perfectly justified in saying that the informa-
tion which had reached us did not justify those statements,
and therefore we believed them to be exaggerated. Is that fact
true, or is it not ? Now that we have arrived at a position in
some degree to realise the truth of the terrible results that did
occur, is the truth most like what we believed to be the case,
or that which was brought forward as the foundation of the
questions of the right honourable gentleman ? I maintain that
the statements we made in Parliament were quite justified.
Lord Derby telegraphed to Sir Henry Elliot a second account,
which appeared in the ' Daily News,' stating that in the Tatar-
Bazardjik district, six Bulgarian cartloads of heads of women
and children were boastfully paraded, and that young women
were regular articles of traffic, and were being sold publicly in
the villages by Tartars and Turks. Lord Derby added that it
was very important that Her Majesty's ministers should be able
to reply to the inquiries made in Parliament respecting these
and other statements, and directed Sir Henry Elliot to inquire
by telegram of consuls, and report as soon as he could. All
the statements in this second account are untrue. There never
were forty maidens locked up in a stable and burnt alive.
That was ascertained with great care by Mr. Baring, and I am
surprised that the right honourable gentleman the member for
Bradford should still speak of it as a statement in which he had
confidence. I believe it is an entire fabrication. I believe, also,
it is an entire fabrication that 1,000 young women were sold

BULGAKIAN ATKOCITIES, AUGUST 1876. 155

in the market as slaves. We have not received the slightest
evidence of a single sale, even in those journals on which the
right honourable gentleman the member for Bradford founded
his erratic speech.

I have been attacked for saying that I did not believe that
it was possible to have 10,000 persons in prison in Bulgaria,
far as I can ascertain from the papers, there never could
lave been more than 3,000. As to the 10,000 cases of torture,
rhat evidence is there of any case of torture ? We know very
rell there has been considerable slaughter ; that there must
ive been isolated and individual cases of most atrocious rapine,
id outrages of a most atrocious kind ; but still we have had
rammnication with Sir Henry Elliot, and he has always
ssumed from what he knew that these cases of individual rapine
and outrage were occurring. He knew that civil war was car-
ried on there under conditions of brutality which unfortunately
re not unprecedented in that country ; and the question is,
rh ether the information -we had justified the extravagant
itements repeated in Parliament which no one pretends to
uphold and defend. We were asked if we had information
rhich justified us in supposing they were authentic. We replied
it we were in daily communication with our ambassador, who
is in constant communication with consuls, and that nothing
rhich reached us warranted those extravagant statements which
lobody now professes to believe. The honourable and learned
gentleman kindly excused me for not having seen the report of
Consul Keade, on the score of my multifarious duties ; but I do
not think my multifarious duties are any excuse for the neglect
of business, and I can assure the House there is not a despatch
which reaches or leaves the country which it is not my intention
to see, and I scrupulously fulfil that duty ; but it is a remark-
able circumstance that that despatch of Consul Eeade, through
no inadvertence of mine, was forwarded to another person. A
delay arose, and it never reached me until ten days after the
question was asked. I wish to vindicate myself on that point.
The honourable and learned gentleman has done full justice
to the Bulgarian atrocities. He has assumed as absolutely true
everything that criticism and more authentic information had

156 SPEECHES OF THE EAKL OF BEACONSFIELD.

modified, and in some instances had proved not merely to be
exaggerations but to be absolute falsehoods. And then the
honourable and learned gentleman says, 'By your policy you have
depopulated a province.' Well, Sir, certainly the slaughter of
12,000 individuals, whether Turks or Bulgarians, whether they
were innocent peasants or even brigands, is a horrible event
which no one can think of without emotion. But when I
remember that the population of Bulgaria is 3,700,000 persons,,
and that it is a very large country, is it not a most extravagant
abuse of rhetoric to say that the slaughter of so considerable a
number as 1 2,000 persons is the depopulation of a province ?
Well, but then the honourable and learned gentleman makes a
severe attack upon the honourable gentleman the Under Secre-
tary of State, because he referred as an authority to the ' Levant
Herald.' Now the * Levant Herald ' is a newspaper which, I
believe, is of considerable authority, and is distinguished for its
authentic information. That article in the ' Levant Herald ' I
may not have read with all the critical acumen of the honourable
and learned member for Oxford ; but certainly, as I read it, there
were many points which I felt as I went on were substantiated
by official papers, the whole of which I believe are now on the
table of the House. And I cannot understand how it is that
those who are so ready sometimes to exaggerate the importance
of newspaper communications, and to assert, as two honourable
gentlemen members of the late Government have done this
evening, that they are more authentic than diplomatic de-
spatches, should say that the * Daily News ' should be such an
absolutely infallible authority upon those matters ; and that the
* Levant Herald ' should be flouted and treated with all the scorn,
which the honourable and learned member for Oxford has poured
upon it. I cannot see why the information of the * Levant
Herald ' is to be treated in that manner. It is to be weighed
fairly. Its statements are not to be accepted without adequate:
consideration ; but I do not place it, as regards having confidence
in its information, lower than any other newspaper. And I have
always heard — I know it was so in old times : I do not know
myself if it be so at present — that it was an authority much
looked up to ; and I have never heard anything about its

BULGARIAN ATEOCITIES, AUGUST 1876. 157

management or character to give any reason to treat its autho-
rity with contempt. But when I find its statements agree and
tally with the statements in the published despatches, I natur-
ally say that it gives me a prejudice in favour of its veracity.
•(' Oh, oh ! ') And I have no doubt, Sir, that if the ' Levant
Herald ' were to publish some evidence to-morrow which would
tell in favour of the views of the right honourable gentleman the
member for Bradford, or the honourable and learned gentleman
the member for Oxford, we should have that journal held up as
containing infallible proof of the fact, and who should dare
attempt to depreciate its authority or question its veracity ?
We should have had nothing but high laudation, instead of the
denouncing phrases which fell upon us to-night.

Well, the honourable and learned gentleman said also that
Her Majesty's Ofovernment had incurred a responsibility which
is not possessed by any other country as regards our relations
with Turkey and our influence with the Turks.

I say we have incurred no responsibility which is not

I shared with us by all the other contracting Powers to the
Treaty of Paris. I utterly disclaim any peculiar responsibility.
He asks, why did we not send a consul to Philippopolis at
once ? and why did we not at once appoint a military attache
to the Turkish army ? Why should we have sent a consular
agent to Philippopolis ? Why send a military attache to the
Turkish army ? To do so does not involve us in any peculiar
responsibility — it is only the exercise by Her Majesty of one
of her rights and duties. It has nothing to do with treaties or
with diplomatic responsibility. Her Majesty has the right to
send a consular agent to any place she thinks fit, and she has a
right, if the Sovereign of the country agrees to it, to send a
military attache to the armies of the belligerents. The very
fact that we were obliged properly to appeal to the Porte for
their permission before we appointed General Kemball, shows
that it was no intrusion and no undue or unjust interference
with the Government of the country, but that we were only
fulfilling our duties as an independent State in connection with
another independent State ; and to attempt to mix up those
two simple acts on the part of the Queen with diplomatic

158 SPEECHES OF THE EAEL OF BEACONSFIELD.

engagements, and responsibility of a peculiar nature arising
from those diplomatic engagements, is really to introduce a
preposterous element into the debate. I am asked why it is
that because we have in August agreed to send a vice-consul
to Philippopolis, we did not do so in May ? Does anyone
believe that if a vice-consul had been sent to Philippopolis in
May it would have prevented the disastrous events that have
occurred ? It is quite impossible to suppose anything of the
kind. What we have done now in a place where I am sorry to
say we have no commercial relations, will at least lay the basis
of some better means of communication in that country, and
we should have better communication with Turkey at present
if, unfortunately, some years back there had not been a Liberal
assault on the consular system which reduced the number of
Turkish vice-consuls.

The honourable and learned gentleman told the Government:
' There is a question now which you must face, and that ques-
tion is, why do you stand out as an obstacle to the settlement
of a great question from pure jealousy of Kussia ? '

I should like to know, in the first place, what is this great
question to the settlement of which we stand out as an obstacle ?"
The honourable and learned gentleman, although he has seldom
had greater command of eloquence, and although he appears to
have given the subject great consideration, never told us what
the real question was, and when he taunted us so indignantly
with being an obstacle to the settlement of this great question,,
he never ventured to define it, except, indeed, that he did
intimate that it was the duty of England, in combination with
Russia and the other Powers, to expel the whole Turkish
nation from Eastern Europe. That an honourable and learned
gentleman,1 once a member of a Government, and an ornament
of that Government, and one who would in future be one
of our eminent statesmen, that after having experienced a
sense of political responsibility, he should get up on the last
day of the session, and with the conviction that from his glowing

1 Sir W. Vernon Harcourt had been Solicitor-General in the previous
Government, and was Homo Secretary in the administration which succeeded
Lord Beaconsfield.

BULGARIAN ATROCITIES, AUGUST 1876. 159

and animated words the country might be disturbed for the
next six months at least, should counsel as the solution of all
these difficulties that Her' Majesty's Government should enter
into an immediate combination to expel the Turkish nation
from Eastern Europe, does indeed surprise me. And because
we are not prepared to enter into a scheme so Quixotic as that
would be, we are held up by the honourable and learned
gentleman and the right honourable gentleman the member
for Bradford as having given our moral, not to say our
material, assistance to the Turkish people and the Turkish
Grovernment. We are always treated as if we had some
peculiar alliance with the Turkish Government, as if we were
their peculiar friends, and even as if we were expected to
uphold them in any enormity they might commit. I want t&
know what evidence there is of that, what interest we have in
such a thing. We are, it is true, the allies of the Sultan of
Turkey — so is Eussia, so is Austria, so is France, and so are
others. We are also their partners in a tripartite treaty, in
which we not only generally, but singly, guarantee with France
and Austria the territorial integrity of Turkey. These are our
engagements, and they are the engagements that we endeavour
to fulfil. And if these engagements, renovated and repeated
only four years ago by the wisdom of Europe, are to be treated
by the honourable and learned gentleman as idle wind and
chaff, and if we are to be told that our political duty is by
force to expel the Turks Lto the other side of the Bosphorus,
then politics cease to be an art, statesmanship becomes a mere
mockery, and instead of being a House of Commons faithful to
its traditions and which is always influenced, I have ever
thought, by sound principles of policy, whoever may be its
leaders, we had better at once resolve ourselves into one of
those revolutionary clubs which settle all political and social
questions with the same ease as the honourable and learned
member.

Sir, we refused to join in the Berlin note because we were
convinced that if we made that step we should very soon see a
material interference in Turkey ; and we were not of opinion
that by a system of material guarantees the great question

160 SPEECHES OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD.

which the honourable and learned gentleman has adverted to,
would be solved either for the general welfare of the world or
for the interests of England, which after all must be our
sovereign care. The Government of the Porte was never for a
moment misled by the arrival of the British fleet in Besika Bay.
They were perfectly aware when that fleet came there that it
was not to prop up any decaying and obsolete Government, nor
did its presence there sanction any of those enormities which
are the subjects of our painful discussion to-night. What may
be the fate of the eastern part of Europe it would be arrogant
for me to speculate upon, and if I had any thoughts on the
subject I trust I should not be so imprudent or so indiscreet as
to take this opportunity to express them. But I am sure that
as long as England is ruled by English Parties who understand
the principles on which our Empire is founded, and who are
resolved to maintain that Empire, our influence in that part of
the world can never be looked upon with indifference. If it
should happen that the Government which controls the greater
portion of those fair lands is found to be incompetent for its
purpose, neither England nor any of the Great Powers will
shrink from fulfilling the high political and moral duty which
will then devolve upon them.

But, Sir, we must not jump at conclusions so quickly as is
now the fashion. There is nothing to justify us in talking in
such a vein of Turkey as has, and is being at this moment
entertained. The present is a state of affairs which requires
the most vigilant examination and the most careful manage-
ment. But those who suppose that England ever would uphold,
or at this moment particularly is upholding, Turkey from blind
superstition and from a want of sympathy with the highest
aspirations of humanity, are deceived. What our duty is at
this critical moment is to maintain the Empire of England.
Nor will we ever agree to any step, though it may obtain for a
moment comparative quiet and a false prosperity, that hazards
the existence of that Empire.

161

SPEECH ON CALLING OUT RESERVE FORCES. April 8,

1878.

MESSAGE FKOM QUEEN.

[By the Treaty of San Stefano, concluded between Russia and
Turkey in the spring of 1878, the latter Power was reduced to a
cypher in the hands of Russia, and the position of England in the
Mediterranean seriously imperilled. Russia was required by the
British Government to submit the treaty to a Congress ; and her
refusal to do so was the signal for Lord Beaconsfield to advise Her
Majesty to call out the Reserve Forces.]

THE EAKL OF BEACONSFIELD : My lords, in moving an
humble address to Her Majesty to thank the Queen for the
•acious message which we have recently received from Her
ajesty, I think it will not be considered unusual that I should
ake a few remarks on the circumstances in which that message
been addressed to Parliament. I assure your lordships I shall
tot ask you to follow me in a narrative of the war which has
uirred between Eussia and Turkey, or of the course which
as been pursued by Her Majesty's Government during that
tr. When last I had the honour of addressing your lordships
on this subject, which was on the occasion of the meeting of
Parliament, I said that during that war no noble lord opposite
had challenged the policy which we had pursued, and I thought,
therefore, I was entitled to assume that the policy on which we
had acted had been generally approved, and I believe I may
infer from what passed on that occasion that noble lords oppo-
site assented to my statement. But it so happened that at
almost the very moment I was then speaking circumstances were
occurring which gave quite a new aspect to affairs, and I think
that upon those circumstances and upon all the conduct of Her
Majesty's Government subsequently to these circumstances

VOL. II. M

102 SPEECHES OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD.

your lordships have a legitimate, constitutional, and Parlia-
mentary right to declare your opinion. With one exception,
I will ask your attention only to what has occurred from the
moment to which I have been alluding. My lords, before I
enter into the details with which I shall have to trouble your
lordships, I ask permission to read an extract from an import-
ant despatch, which extract it seems to me to be necessary you
should have in your minds before you can form an impartial
judgment on the statement which I am about to submit to your
lordships' House. In that paper, which was an answer to Prince
Grortchakoff announcing and vindicating the commencement of
the war between Kussia and Turkey, the Secretary of State (the
Earl of Derby) argued with great ability the many reasons why
we could not agree with His Highness. Having given many
reasons for this, the Secretary of State concluded : —

' The course on which the Russian Government has entered
involves graver and more serious considerations.' (That is,
graver and more serious than those which he had already
alleged.) ' It is in contravention of the stipulation of the
Treaty of Paris of March 30, 1856, by which Russia and the
other signatory Powers engaged, each on its own part, to respect
the independence and the territorial integrity of the Ottoman
Empire. In the Conference of London of 1871, at the close of
which the above stipulation with others was again confirmed,
the Russian plenipotentiary, in common with those of the other
Powers, signed a declaration affirming it to be " an essential
principle of the law of nations that no Power can liberate itself
from the engagements of a treaty, nor modify the stipulations
thereof, unless with the consent of the contracting parties
by means of an amicable arrangement." In taking action
against Turkey on his own part, and having recourse to arms
without further consultation with his allies, the Emperor of
Russia has separated himself from the European concert hitherto
maintained, and has at the same time departed from the rule
to which he himself had solemnly recorded his consent.'

My lords, the reply from which I have read that extract is
dated May 1, 1877 ; and it is of the greatest importance that the
House should bear in mind that, at the commencement of the

SPEECH ON CALLING- OUT RESERVE FORCES, APRIL 1878. 163

•deplorable war which I trust has now ceased, this announcement
was so deliberately made and this principle was vindicated in a
manner so distinct by Hep Majesty's Government. My lords,
the extract which I have read conveys the keynote of our
policy ; it is the diapason of our diplomacy ; upon it our policy
was founded; and had not those engagements been entered
into by Eussia, and had we not held her bound by those en-
gagements in the face of Europe, no policy of neutrality would
have been sanctioned by this country. I believe, my lords, I
may say that not alone for this, but for other countries which
adopted the same policy.

Well, since I had the honour of addressing your lordships
at the beginning of this session, circumstances which were just
then occurring and which continued afterwards have given a
new aspect to the state of affairs. Those circumstances were
as follow: — About that time Her Majesty's Government re-
ceived private information that negotiations were commencing
or were about to commence between the belligerent Powers.
No sooner had that information reached us than the Secre-
tary of State addressed to Her Majesty's ambassador at St.
Petersburg, Lord A. Loftus, instructions which were as follow,
and were dated January 14 : —

' Her Majesty's ambassador has been instructed to state to
Prince Gortchakoff that, in order to avoid possible misconcep-
tion and in view of reports which have reached Her Majesty's
Government, they are of opinion that any treaty concluded
between the Governments of Kussia and the Porte affecting the
treaties of 1856 and 1871 must be a European treaty, and
"would not be valid without the assent of the Powers who were
parties to those treaties.'

My lords, on January 23, having received no answer from
Kussia with respect to those representations, the Secretary of
State, pressing for an answer, telegraphed in these terms : —

' Have you received an answer from the Russian Government
to the communication which you made on the 15th inst.
respecting the validity of any future treaty ? '

On January 24, ten days after the original representations,

M 2

164 SPEECHES OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD.

Her Majesty's ambassador writes to say he had received no-
answer himself, and adds : —

* I presume Prince Grortchakoff regarded the communication
as a statement to record the opinion of Her Majesty's Govern-
ment which required no answer. If an answer was to be given,
it would probably be made through the Russian ambassador in
London.'

Accordingly, my lords, on the day after that message was re-
ceived, Count Schouvaloff read to my noble friend the following
extract of a telegram from Prince Grortchakoff : —

1 We repeat the assurance that we do not intend to settle
by ourselves (isolemenf) European questions having reference
to the peace which is to be made (se rattachant a la paix)'

Meanwhile, my lords, information reached us that negotia-
tions were now being carried on between Eussian and Turkish
delegates at Kezanlik, and that those negotiations were being
conducted with the utmost secrecy, I may say mystery, which
secrecy was held as against those who had religiously and
honourably observed that policy of neutrality which had been
promised by the Secretary of State. In consequence of this,
my lords, on January 29 the Secretary of State addressed the
following despatch to Lord A. Loftus : —

' I have to instruct your Excellency to state to the Russian
Gfovernment that Her Majesty's Government, while recognising
any arrangements made by the Russian and Turkish delegates
at Kezanlik for the conclusion of an armistice and for the set
tlement of bases of peace as binding between the two belligei
ents, declare that in so far as those arrangements are calculatec
to modify European treaties and to affect general and Britisl
interests they are unable to recognise in them any validitj
unless they are made the subject of a formal agreement amon£
the parties to the Treaty of Paris.'

At the same time, my lords, the Secretary of State sent the
following circular in identical language to Her Majesty's am-
bassadors at all the Courts of Paris, Vienna, Berlin, and Rome.
Your lordships will perceive that it contains an additional para-
graph, but in other respects is substantially the same as the
communication to Lord A. Loftus of January 29.

SPEECH ON CALLING OUT EESEEVE FOECES, APEIL 1878. 165

: I have to request that your Excellency will inform the
Government to which you are accredited that Her Majesty's
Government, while they are prepared to recognise any arrange-
ments which may be made by the Eussian delegates and those
of Turkey at Kezanlik with a view to the conclusion of an
armistice and the settlement of bases of peace as binding be-
tween the two belligerents, declare, nevertheless, that in so far
as such arrangements may be found calculated to modify European
treaties, or to affect general interests or those of Great Britain,
they are unable to recognise in them any validity unless they
shall be made the subject of a formal agreement by the Powers
parties to the Treaty of Paris.

' Her Majesty's Government entertain the hope that the
view of the case above stated, which is entirely based upon the
treaties, and more especially upon the Treaty of London of
1871, will receive the assent of the other Powers who were
parties to those treaties.'

At length, my lords, there came the following reply from
the Eussian Government : —

' St. Petersburg : January 30, 1878.

' I have received your lordship's telegram of yesterday, con-
taining a declaration relative to the question of the validity of
the bases of peace, and I have this morning communicated the
substance of it to Prince Gortchakoff. His Highness replied
that to effect an armistice certain bases of peace were necessary,
3ut they are only to be considered as preliminaries, and not
lefinitive as regarded Europe. His Highness stated categori-
illy that questions bearing on European interests will be con-
certed with European Powers, and he had given Her Majesty's
rovernment clear and positive assurances to this effect.'

Those positive assurances were repeated in communications
made by the Eussian ambassador to this country ; and I am
bound to say, as so many remarks have been made on the
conduct of that plenipotentiary, that I believe he has made no
representations to Her Majesty's Government which are not to
be found in the instructions which he received from his own
Government.

Well, my lords, this carried us through the month of

166 SPEECHES OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD .

January, the month in which Parliament assembled, the month
in which those negotiations between Kussia and Turkey com-
menced, and the month in which was received that declaration
from Prince Grortehakoff which Her Majesty's Grovernment was
induced to regard as satisfactory. And that it was deemed
satisfactory by the Government of Austria also I think there
can be no doubt, because on February 4 a formal invitation
was received by Her Majesty's Grovernment from the Grovern-
ment of Austria to a Conference to be held at Vienna. That
communication was made with the knowledge of Kussia, or, to
use the language of a despatch of the Austrian ambassador,
Russia 'fully appreciated it,' and the object of the Conference
was stated to be the establishment of-' a European agreement
as to the modifications which it might become necessary to in-
troduce in existing treaties,' in order to make them harmonise
with the present situation. Your lordships will observe the
character in which this Grovernment, the Grovernment of Austria,
and the other Governments were to take part in the Conference.
Avowedly, it was in her character as a signatory of the treaties
of 1856 that Austria addressed the invitation to the other
Powers, and it was in their character as signatories of those
treaties that the other Powers received that invitation. That
carried us to the commencement of February, and the month
which follows is not rich in diplomatic documents. But, my
lords, it was not an uneventful month. During the whole of
that period Austria was busy in conferring with the different
Courts of Europe and in making arrangements for the meet-
ing of the Conference. There was the scheme of its meetings at
Vienna ; there was the objection of some of the Powers to the
meeting being held in a capital city. There were discussions
as to the presidency, as to the locality, and as to the name of
the assembly, as to whether it should be held in a capital city
or in a place of more obscure character, as to whether it should
be called a Conference or a Congress, and as to whether it should
be presided over by a Secretary of State or by some other
minister. All those questions occupied the minds of Grovern-
ments, but they did not occupy the minds of Her Majesty's
Grovernment. Her Majesty's Grovernment never made the

SPEECH ON CALLING OUT RESERVE FORCES, APRIL 1878. 167

slightest objection. There were persons proposed whom we
might not have approved as the best president ; there were
localities proposed which, perhaps, we did not approve as the
best ; but we never made any objection of the kind. We
thought too much of the interests of peace and of the magni-
tude of the considerations involved in a meeting of a Conference
•>r Congress ; so that whether it was to be a Conference or a
Congress, or whether it was to be held at Vienna, as originally
proposed, or at Baden, or at Berlin, or who was to preside over
it were matters which Her Majesty's Government put on one
side, because we were anxious that there should be such a
leeting, believing that by it a means of securing the peace of
Europe might be obtained.

My lords, an invitation arrived from Austria to a Congress
at Berlin, the objection to a capital city having, it appears, been
waived. Well, we stated without a moment's delay that we
would accept it. and we did not for a moment ask why Berlin
should be preferred to Vienna. All we wanted was that there
should be such a meeting ; but mindful as we were of the
events which had been occurring during the month of February
when Austria was carrying on those negotiations, remembering
that during the whole of that time secret negotiations were
being carried on between Russia and the Porte, remembering
the fact that during the whole time while those secret negotia-
tions were proceeding the Russian army was advancing, and, if
not occupying, encircling the capital of Turkey, and remem-
bering that we had felt it our duty to advise Her Majesty to
send a portion of the fleet to the Dardanelles, we considered it
was of importance when we assented to attending a Congress at
Berlin that the policy of Her Majesty's Government should be
stated in an unmistakable form, and the Secretary of State
on March 4, while agreeing to that proposition, expressed to
Count Beust the views of Her Majesty's Government in these
terms : —

1 Her Majesty's Government, however, consider that it
would be desirable to have it understood in the first place that
all questions dealt with in the treaty of peace between Russia
and Turkey should be considered as subjects to be discussed in

168 SPEECHES OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD.

the Congress, and that no alteration in the condition of things
previously established by treaty should be acknowledged as
valid until it has received the assent of the Powers.'

I think, my lords, I have shown you that in the eventful
month that elapsed from the time to which I before alluded,
Her Majesty's Government were consistently maintaining that
great principle which they had vindicated before the war com-
menced, which they had repeated on other occasions, and which
on this occasion, when the meeting of the Congress appeared to
be settled upon generally, they felt it their duty to again affirm
in the terms I have just read to the House. A day or two
afterwards — in consequence, probably, of some rumours which
may have reached us or of some slight indications of feeling
which it was impossible to record, but which the observant critic
would not fail to remark — the Secretary of State wrote in this
language to Her Majesty's ambassador at Vienna : —

* I have to request your Excellency to inform Count Andrassy
that, in order to avoid any misapprehension as to the meaning of
their recent declaration contained in my note to Count Beust of
the 9th inst., Her Majesty's Government desire to state that
they must distinctly understand, before they enter into Congress,
that every article in the treaty between Kussia and Turkey will
be placed before the Congress, not necessarily for acceptance,
but in order that it may be considered what articles require
acceptance or concurrence by the several Powers and what do
not.'

Now, my lords, after some slight delay, we received a memo-
randum from Prince Gortchakoff which was communicated by
Lord A. Loftus on March 1 7.

' In answer to the communication by Lord Augustus Loftus
of the despatch in which Lord Derby has answered the proposal
of Count Beust respecting the meeting of a Congress at Berlin,
I have the honour to repeat the assurance which Count Schou-
valoff has already been instructed to give to the Government of
Her Britannic Majesty — namely, that the preliminary treaty of
peace concluded between Kussia and Turkey will be textually
communicated to the Great Powers before the meeting of the
Congress, and that in the Congress itself each Power will hav«

SPEECH ON CALLING OUT KESEEVE FOECES, APEIL 1878. 169

the full liberty of its appreciations and of its action (" la pleine
liberte de ses appreciations et de son action ").'

Now, my lords, I may nbt, perhaps, be an impartial judge, but
I must say that the phrase ' la pleine liberte de ses appre-
ciations et de son action ' was one of which I was not able to
form a very clear conception. As to what ' appreciation ' and
1 action ' may be, no doubt different interpretations may be
furnished. It is a phrase involved in some degree of classical
ambiguity. Delphi itself could hardly have been more perplex-
ing and august. (Laughter and cheers.) Well, my lords, Her
Majesty's Government could place only one interpretation on
that communication. However ambiguous the language of
previous despatches, however various the expressions that had
been used, there was nothing in the previous correspondence
between the two Courts to induce us to assume that there would
be a refusal on the part of Eussia to that which England
believed to be a natural, just, and indispensable condition of her
entering into the Congress. We are to understand by implica-
tion that now for the first time there was ground for that
assumption. My lords, let me make one or two remarks on
the character of this treaty of San Stefano which Her Majesty's
Government felt so necessary to be submitted to the Congress,
and which we believed — and I think we believed so in common
with the other Powers — Kussia was bound by the treaties of
1856 and 1871 to submit to the Congress. (Hear, hear.) The
treaty is in your lordships' hands, and, therefore, I will not
enter into a minute criticism of its every article ; but it is
necessary that I should put before your lordships some of its
provisions, because, unless they be clear in your lordships'
minds, you would hardly be in a position to impartially decide
•as to the consequences to which the treaty would lead, and as
to the course which in respect of it Her Majesty's Government
have thought it their duty to pursue.

The treaty is one of twenty-seven or twenty-nine articles,
•and, with the exception of a merely technical one, every one of
them is a deviation from the articles of the treaties of 1856
and 1871. I do not say that every article of the treaty of San
Stefano would be a violation of the treaties of 1856 and 1871,

170 SPEECHES OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD.

because that would be a hard phrase. If the Government of
Russia were prepared, as we believed they were prepared, to
place the treaty of San Stefano before the Congress, I should
look at the deviations between the treaty of San Stefano and
the treaties of 1856 and 1871, not as violations, but rather as
suggestions of the Russian Government to be laid before the
Congress in order that they might be considered, and, if just,
be adopted by the other Powers of Europe. But let us look at
what this treaty does — this treaty which was negotiated in such
secrecy and encircled in mystery to such a degree that the
Porte was commanded by Russia not to let a single article of it
be known to the neutral Powers, without whose neutrality she
could not have gained the advantages she enjoyed, and which
would not have been shown unless it had been believed that, as
regarded the other Powers, Russia would feel bound by the
treaties of 1856 and 1871. Well, my lords, the treaty of San
Stefano completely abrogates what is known as Turkey in
Europe ; it abolishes the dominion of the Ottoman Empire in
Europe ; it creates a large State which, under the name of
Bulgaria, is inhabited by many races not Bulgarians. This
Bulgaria goes to the shores of the Black Sea and seizes the
ports of that sea ; it extends to the coast of the JEgean and
appropriates the ports of that coast. The treaty provides for
the government of this new Bulgaria, under a prince who is to
be selected by Russia, its administration is to be organised and
supervised by a commissary of Russia, and this new State is to
be garrisoned, I say for an indefinite period, but at all events
for two years certain, by Russia.

My lords, it is not merely this vast district, this vast space
of country, which is taken from the Porte for which the power
and the government of Russia is substituted by the stipulations
in this treaty, but for the distant provinces of Bosnia, and
Epirus, and Thessaly there are instituted new laws which are to
be revised by Russia and afterwards supervised by Russia ; so
that we say all the European dominions of the Ottoman Porte
are taken from the Porte and put under the administration of
Russia. My lords, it is not difficult to see that the effect of all
the stipulations combined, will be to make the Black Sea as

SPEECH ON CALLING OUT EESERVE FOECES, APEIL 1878. 171

much a Russian lake as the Caspian. The harbour of Batoum,
which is still in possession of the Porte, is seized by Russia, all
the strongholds in Armenia are seized by Russia, and the portion
of that great province nominally left to Turkey, will be governed
by law supervised by Russia. The next point which I feel it
necessary to bring under the consideration of your lordships, is
that of the claim of Russia to the district of Bessarabia, of which
she was deprived after the Crimean War. My lords, I need not
recall to your recollection the distressing circumstances which
are now arriving and which have arrived with reference to that
portion of the treaty of San Stefano ; but I want to point out
to your lordships that here it is not a matter of trifling or local
interest which is at stake. The clause in the Treaty of Paris
with regard to the cession of Bessarabia was one on which Lord
Palmerston placed the utmost stress, and to which he attached
the very greatest importance. It involved the emancipation of
the Danube, and, accordingly, Lord Palmerston treated it as an
article, not of local, but of European interest. It was inserted
in the original preliminaries of the treaty, and an attempt was
made by Russia to evade it ; but Lord Palmerston attached
such importance to it that the Congress of Paris was nearly
breaking up because of the efforts made not to have that article
carried into effect.

The great interest felt at the Congress of Paris in taking
security against the closing of those seas and the closing of
the Danube, is a mater which your lordships will bear in mind
when examining the treaty of San Stefano. The large Euro-
pean commerce which is now carried on from Trebizond to
Russia and Central Asia may be stopped at the pleasure of
Russia in consequence of cessions in Kurdistan. But what
would be the consequence of the treaty if carried out with
reference to the navigation of the Straits ? By that treaty the
Sultan of Turkey is reduced to a state of absolute subjugation
to Russia, and, either as to the opening of the navigation of
the Black Sea or as to all those rights and privileges with
which the Sultan was invested as an independent sovereign,
he would be no longer in the position in which he was placed
by the European treaties. We therefore protest against an

172 SPEECHES OF THE EAKL OF BEACONSFIELD.

arrangement which practically would place at the command of
Russia, and Russia alone, that unrivalled situation and its
resources which the European Powers placed under the govern-
ment of the Porte.

Now, my lords, this treaty was signed on March 3, but it
was not delivered to Her Majesty's Government till March 23.
I do not say that during the interval we had not by extraordi-
nary means obtained some knowledge of its provisions, but that
was knowledge on which we could not absolutely rely ; it was
knowledge which, like all knowledge acquired in that way, was
likely to be in some degree erroneous ; but, at all events, it
allowed us to avail ourselves of the earliest opportunity of
endeavouring to avert what we conceived to be mischievous
results to all Europe. My lords, we still hoped and still be-
lieved that a Congress might be obtained, and we looked to it
as the only means by which the unsatisfactory state of public
affairs might be remedied. We were prepared, if all the Powers
entered into the Congress, and if it were a bonafide Congress,
and in accordance with the positive engagements as we believed
of Russia — we were prepared, I say, to see the treaty of San
Stefano submitted to discussion by that Congress in order that,
to use the words of the Austrian Government, a reglement
definitif of the conditions of future peace might be arrived at.
It appeared to us that the circumstances of the world were not
unfavourable to that. All the Great Powers of Europe during
the last ten years, except England, unfortunately for them,'
had been involved in fearful wars, and were suffering from the
exhaustion attendant on such wars ; and we believed that, with
the general and natural inclination for peace arising from such
circumstances, the discussions of a Congress, carried on as a
European Congress would be, would prove favourable to a satis-
factory solution of difficulties. And, my lords, we, as far as we
were concerned, had a due consideration for the circumstances
in which Russia was placed, in consequence of the war between
her and Turkey, because we could not expect that Russia would
appear at^the Congress merely in the same character as she
assumed when she became a signatory to the treaties of 1856
and 1871. We were prepared to consider the events that had

SPEECH ON CALLING OUT EESERVE FORCES, APRIL 1878. 173

occurred ; but, having regard to the temper with which we ex-
pected that the proposals of Kussia would be considered,
we believed that Kussia would not disappoint the other
Powers. We regarded it as being for her own advantage
to comply with the engagements into which she had entered,
and that, acting as she had agreed to act by the treaties of 1856
and 1871, she would have placed before the Congress the stipu-
lations of all the articles of the treaty.

My lords, you have heard from me in my previous narrative
how these hopes were disappointed. My lords, it was when
these hopes were disappointed, and when we found there was
no chance by the aid of treaties or by the public law of Europe
to bring about a settlement of those great affairs, that we had
to consider what was our duty. My lords, the Congress could
not meet after that refusal on the part of Russia to conform to
her engagements under previous treaties, and the conditions
which England put forward when the treaty of San Stefano
was placed before the European Powers were conditions
which she could never relinquish. The justice of them has
been universally acknowledged. It is not denied even by
Russia. What, then, was the state of affairs ? No Congress
was to meet, and a most important portion of Eastern Europe
and a considerable portion of Western Asia were either occupied
by an invading army or were in a state of actual rebellion. It
was impossible to say what might not occur in circumstances of
such difficulty and distress. My lords, the country in which
these events were occurring is a country which has always
been subject to strange and startling vicissitudes. In the
East there is only one step between collapse and convulsion,
and it was possible that with the British fleet in the Darda-
nelles, the chief highway between Europe and Asia might be
seized, and that the commercial road from Trebizond to Persia
might be stopped.

We know that, if not in the memory of the present genera-
tion, certainly in the memory of some members of your lord-
ships' House, armies marched through Syria and through Asia
without firing a shot, and held Constantinople in a state of
trepidation. Why not march armies in the same way and hold

174 SPEECHES OF THE EARL OF BEACON SF1ELD.

Egypt and the Suez Canal in the same state of trepidation as
Constantinople and the Bosphorus was held at that time?
In those circumstances, there was, in our opinion, only one
course to take. When everything was unsettled ; when there
was no prospect of a settlement ; when there seemed no pro-
bability of the treaty of San Stefano being submitted for dis-
cussion to the European Powers, and of the public law being
vindicated ; when all Europe was armed, was England to be dis-
armed ? Was England to be deterred from doing her duty to
herself and to Europe by taunts and threats — because we were
told that we were menacing when we thought to conciliate ?
My lords, our fleet, which has reached the waters of the Darda-
nelles, has acted in a manner worthy of it, and in the manner
it might have been expected to act ; but I have always thought
that when it is found necessary to show our strength, certainly
England should not be limited to one of her services — that she
should appeal to her military force to maintain her honour and
her interests, as well as to her marine.

Well, my noble lords, in those circumstances we felt it our
duty to advise Her Majesty to send the message to your lord-
ships' House the answer to which I am about to propose.
{Cheers.) And here let me make one remark upon the act of
the Sovereign in that particular. It is the first time the Sove-
reign of this country has sent down such a message to Parlia-
ment, because this message is in virtue of an Act of Parliament
which was passed only a very few years ago. That Act was in
consequence of a great military reform, which was inaugurated
by the last Government, and particularly by the noble viscount
(Viscount Card well) opposite. My lords, that great military
reform gave rise to much controversy and opposition in the
country ; but, as has been the case in respect of all great Acts
of our legislature, when it became law every man on both sides
exerted himself to carry it into effect. I am sure that during
the experience of the present Government — and that has not
been a short one — there has been an unceasing effort to carry
into effect the measures and policy of the noble viscount
opposite. I feel at liberty to speak on this point, because it is
my lot to differ from many of my friends in this matter. The

SPEECH ON CALLING OUT EESEKVE FOKCES, APRIL 1878. 175

great principle which is the foundation of the reserve system —
the principle of short service — is one which I have had the
honour to support. Well, my lords, it is in consequence of
that reform in our military system, and the institution of short
service, that we are obliged to recommend Her Majesty to call
out our reserves. Under the new military system it was laid
down that a battalion in time of war or on active service should
consist of not less than 1,000 men. A battalion in time of
peace consists of only 500 men, and therefore the machinery of
reserves, the arrangement introduced by the noble lord opposite,
that there should be with this short service a means by which
when men passed through their short service and left their
colours they might become, under another title, the soldiers of
Her Majesty, was the only means by which you could convert
our battalions of 500 men, in case of emergency, into battalions
of 1,000 men, who should not be mere raw recruits.

Now, unfortunately, the name for this force is not a very
felicitous one ; it is called the Eeserve Force, and it is called
the Militia Reserve Force, and the world associates with the
word * reserves ' some resource that is left to the last, that is only
to be appealed to in great emergency, and is to be the ultimate
means by which you can effect your purpose. But this is
exactly the reverse of what the reserve force instituted by
the noble lord opposite is. It is not the last resource, but it is
the first resource under our system. At this moment you
really cannot put a corps d'armee into the field in a manner
which would satisfy the country, unless Her Majesty was
advised that the circumstances justified such a message to the
House from the Crown as I brought up the other day. Well,
my lords, if it was necessary in this state of Europe that Her
Majesty should have a sufficient naval and military force, we
could take no step but that which we advised the Crown to
adopt. And what was the consequence of this step? Her
Majesty will be able in a very brief space of time to possess an
army of 70,000 men fairly and even completely disciplined.
It is double the force of Englishmen that Marlborough or
Wellington ever commanded ; but it is not a force sufficient to

176 SPEECHES OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD ,

carry on a great war. If England is involved in a great war
our military resources are much more considerable than those
you may put in motion by this statute ; but it is the only way
in which you can place at the disposal of the Crown a consider-
able and adequate force when the circumstances of the country
indicate an emergency.

The noble lord the leader of the Opposition the other
night, in his lively and satisfactory answer to one of his own
supporters, admitted and approved the satisfactory state in
which the country was with regard to defence. He said : —
' We happen to know from the Secretary of State that he has a
corps d'armee ready, and that in a short time he can have
another.' These make up the 70,000 men of whom I speak,
and therefore the noble lord admitted it was not an unreason-
able amount of force we were calling upon Parliament to grant.
The question, therefore, between us and the noble lord is this —
I will not say between the noble lord and us, but between us
and any who differ from the policy of the Government in this
respect — are the circumstances that exist in the East of Europe
at this moment — do the circumstances that prevail in the
Mediterranean constitute an emergency which justifies the
demands that Her Majesty shall not only have a powerful navy
in these waters, but shall command, if necessary, not a very
considerable, but an adequate and an efficient army? Now,
my lords, I would say that this is a question which comes home
to every man's bosom. I cannot conceive myself that in the
position in which this country now finds itself, when an
immense revolution in an important portion of the world has
occurred — a revolution which involves the consideration of
some of the most important interests of this country, and, I
may say, even the freedom of Europe — I say I cannot conceive
that any person who feels a sense of responsibility in the
conduct of affairs could for a moment pretend that, when all
are armed, England alone should be disarmed.

I am sure my noble friend,1 whose loss I so much deplore,
would never uphold that doctrine, or he would not have added
the sanction of his authority to the meeting of Parliament and

1 Lord Derby.

SPEECH ON CALLING OUT KESEEVE FOECES, APEIL 1878. 17?

the appeal we made to Parliament immediately for funds ade-
quate to the occasion of peril which we believed to exist. No
I do not think such things of him ; and to the individual of
whom I did I should say, Naviget Anticyram ; only I trust, for
heaven's sake, that his lunacy would not imperil the British
Empire. I have ever considered that Her Majesty's Govern-
ment, of whatever party formed, are the trustees of that
Empire. That Empire was formed by the enterprise and
energy of your ancestors, my lords ; and it is one of a very
peculiar character. I know no example of it, either in ancient
or modern history. No Caesar or Charlemagne ever presided
over a dominion so peculiar. Its flag floats on many waters ;
it has provinces in every zone, they are inhabited by persons of
different races, different religion, different laws, manners,
customs. Some of these are bound to us by the ties of liberty,
fully conscious that without their connection with the metro-
polis they have no security for public freedom and self-govern-
ment; others are bound to us by flesh and blood and by
material as well as moral considerations. There are millions
who are bound to us by our military sway, and they bow to
that sway because they know that they are indebted to it for
order and justice. All these communities agree in recognising
the commanding spirit of these islands that has formed and
fashioned in such a manner so great a portion of the globe.
My lords, that Empire is no mean heritage ; but it is not a
heritage that can only be enjoyed ; it must be maintained, and
it can only be maintained by the same qualities that created it
—by courage, by discipline, by patience, by determination, and
by a reverence for public law and respect for national rights.
My lords, in the East of Europe at this moment some securities
of that Empire are imperilled. I never can believe that at
such a moment it is the Peers of England who will be wanting
to uphold the cause of this country. I will not believe for
a moment but that you will unanimously vote the address in
answer to the message which I now move. The motion was as
follows : —

'That an humble address be presented to Her Majesty,
VOL. u. N

178 SPEECHES OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD.

thanking Her Majesty for her most gracious message, commu-
nicating to this House Her Majesty's intention to cause the
Keserve Force and the Militia Reserve Force, or such part
thereof as Her Majesty should think necessary, to be forthwith
called out for permanent service.'

179

BERLIN TREATY.

Speech in House of Lords July 18, 1878, after the return from
Berlin.

[The calling out of the Reserves in the month of April had been
followed by the still more vigorous step of bringing up to Malta a
division of our Indian army. The right of the Crown to employ
Indian troops on this service had given rise to the most animated de-
bates of the session in both Houses, in which, however, Lord Beacons -
field took only a subordinate part. But, right or wrong on
constitutional grounds, the measure seems to have been eminently
successful on diplomatic ones. Russia at once began to lower her
pretensions, and agreed eventually to the demands of England that the
treaty of San Stefano should be entrusted to a European Congress.
Early in June Lord Beaconsfield and Lord Salisbury went out as
the English plenipotentiaries to the Congress of Berlin. They
arrived in London on their return on July 15, and were greeted with
an ovation which has not many parallels in our history. Three days
afterwards Lord Beaconsfield delivered the following 'speech in the
House of Lords, which was crowded before five o'clock to listen to the
great orator and successful diplomatist. The galleries were thronged
with princesses and peeresses, the Princess of Wales being among the
number; and everything denoted a degree of interest and enthusiasm
which neither the people nor the aristocracy of this country are in the
habit of exhibiting. Lord Beaconsfield's contention was that by the
Treaty of Berlin we had so modified the treaty of San Stefano, con-
cluded between Russia and Turkey under protest from this country,
that we had restored the independence of the Turkish Empire'
Turkey exists once more ! ' was the exclamation of Prince Bismarck
when the line of the Balkans was secured for her. He further
maintained that by the occupation of Cyprus and the superintendence
of Asia Minor we had diminished, not increased, our responsibilities.
We must, under any circumstances, have resisted a Russian invasion
w Asia Minor; and by removing all pretext for such a movement we
had in reality reduced the chance of being forced into hostilities in

N 2

180 SPEECHES OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD.

future. Mr. Gladstone, three years afterwards, in paying a tribute to
the memory of his deceased rival, singled out this moment as the
culminating point of his greatness in the eyes of those who regarded
his policy with admiration ; and he applied to his Berlin triumph the
well-known words of Virgil —

Aspice ut insignis spoliis Marcellus opimis,
Ingreditur, victorque viros surpereminet omnes.

His subsequent fortunes suggest to us the words of another Latin
poet, who said that Marius would have been the greatest and most
fortunate man whom either Rome or nature had produced if only his
great soul had taken flight—

Quum de Teutonico vellet descendere curru.]

MY LORDS, in laying on the table of your lordships' House,
as I am about to do, the protocols of the Congress of
Berlin, I have thought I should be only doing my duty to
your lordships' House, to Parliament generally, and to the coun-
try, if I made some remarks on the policy which was supported
by the representatives of Her Majesty at the Congress, and
which is embodied in the Treaty of Berlin and in the conven-
tion which was placed on your lordships' table during my

absence.

My lords, you are aware that the treaty of San Stefano
was looked on with much distrust and alarm by Her Majesty's
Government — that they believed it was calculated to bring
about a state of affairs dangerous to European independence
and injurious to the interests of the British Empire. Our im-
peachment of that policy is before your lordships and the coun-
try, and is contained in the circular of my noble friend the
Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in April last. Our pre-
sent contention is, that we can show that, by the changes and
modifications which have been made in the treaty of San
Stefano by the Congress of Berlin and the Convention of Con-
stantinople, the menace to European independence has been
removed, and the threatened injury to the British Empire has
been averted. Your lordships will recollect that by the treaty
of San Stefano about one half of Turkey in Europe was formed
into a State called Bulgaria — a State consisting of upwards of

BEELIN TKEATY. 181

50,000 geographical square miles, and containing a population
of 4,000,000, with harbours on either sea — both on the shores
of the Euxine and of the Archipelago. That disposition of
territory severed Constantinople and the limited district which
was still spared to the possessors of that city — severed it from
the provinces of Macedonia and Thrace by Bulgaria descend-
ing to the very shores of the ^Egean ; and, altogether, a State
was formed, which, both from its natural resources and its
peculiarly favourable geographical position, must necessarily
have exercised a predominant influence over the political and
commercial interests of that part of the world. The remain-
ing portion of Turkey in Europe was reduced also to a con-
siderable degree by affording what was called compensation to
previous rebellious tributary principalities, which have now
become independent States — so that the general result of the
treaty of San Stefano was, that while it spared the authority
of the Sultan so far as his capital and its immediate vicinity, it
reduced him to a state of subjection to the great Power which
had defeated his armies, and which was present at the gates of
his capital. Accordingly, though it might be said that he still
seemed to be invested with one of the highest functions of
public duty — the protection and custody of the Straits — it was
apparent that his authority in that respect could be exercised
by him in deference only to the superior Power which had van-
quished him, and to whom the proposed arrangements would
have kept him in subjection.

My lords, in these matters the Congress of Berlin have
made great changes. They have restored to the Sultan two-
thirds of the territory which was to have formed the great
Bulgarian State. They have restored to him upwards of 30,000
geographical square miles, and 2,500,000 of population — that
territory being the richest in the Balkans, where most of the
land is rich, and the population one of the wealthiest, most
ingenious, and most loyal of his subjects. The frontiers of his
State have been pushed forward from the mere environs of
Salonica and Adrianople to the lines of the Balkans and
Trajan's pass ; the new principality, which was to exercise such
an influence, and produce a revolution in the disposition -of the

182 SPEECHES OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD.

territory and policy of that part of the globe, is now merely a
State in the Valley of the Danube, and both in its extent and
its population is reduced to one-third of what was contemplated
by the treaty of San Stefano. My lords, it has been said that
while the Congress of Berlin decided upon a policy so bold as
that of declaring the range of the Balkans as the frontier of
what may now be called New Turkey, they have, in fact, fur-
nished it with a frontier which, instead of being impregnable,
is in some parts undefended, and is altogether one of an in-
adequate character.

My lords, it is very difficult to decide, so far as nature is
concerned, whether any combination of circumstances can ever
be brought about which would furnish what is called an im-
pregnable frontier. Whether it be river, desert, or moun-
tainous range, it will be found, in the long run, that the
impregnability of a frontier must be supplied by the vital
spirit of man ; and that it is by the courage, discipline, patriot-
ism, and devotion of a population that impregnable frontiers
can alone be formed. And, my lords, when I remember what
race of men it was that created and defended Plevna, I must
confess my confidence that, if the cause be a good one, they
will not easily find that the frontier of the Balkans is in-
defensible. But it is said that although the Congress has
furnished — and it pretended to furnish nothing more — a com-
petent military frontier to Turkey, the disposition was so ill-
managed, that, at the same time, it failed to secure an effective
barrier — that in devising the frontier, it so arranged matters
that this very line of the Balkans may be turned. The Con-
gress has been charged with having committed one of the
greatest blunders that could possibly have been accomplished
by leaving Sofia in the possession of a Power really indepen-
dent of Turkey, and one which, in the course of time, might
become hostile to Turkey. My lords, this is, in my opinion,
an error on the part of those who furnish information of an
authentic character to the different populations of Europe, who
naturally desire to have correct information on such matters.

It is said that the position of Sofia is of a commanding
character, and that of its value the Congress were not aware,

BEKLIN TEE AT Y. 183

and that it was yielded to an imperious demand on the part
of one of the Powers represented at the Congress. My lords,
I can assure your lordships that there is not a shadow of truth
in the statement. I shall show that when the Congress re-
solved to establish the 'line of the Balkans as the frontier of
Turkey, they felt that there would have been no difficulty, as
a matter of course, in Turkey retaining possession of Sofia.
What happened was this. The highest military authority of
the Turks — so I think I may describe him — was one of the
plenipotentiaries at the Congress of the Porte — I allude to
Mehemet AH Pasha. Well, the moment the line of the Bal-
kans was spoken of, he brought under the notice of his col-
leagues at the Conference — and especially, I may say, of the
plenipotentiaries of England — his views on the subject, and,
speaking as he did not only with military authority, but also
with consummate acquaintance with all those localities, he
said nothing could be more erroneous than the idea that Sofia
was a strong strategic position, and that those who possessed
it would immediately turn the Balkans and march on Constan-
tinople. He said that as a strategical position it was worthless,
but that there was a position in the Sandjak of Sofia which, if
properly defended, might be regarded as impregnable, and that
was the pass of Ichtiman. He thought it of vital importance
to the Sultan that that position should be secured to Turkey,
as then His Majesty would have an efficient defence to his
capital.

That position was secured. It is a pass which, if properly
defended, will prevent any host, however powerful, from taking
Constantinople by turning the Balkans. But, in consequence
of that arrangement, it became the duty of the plenipoten-
tiaries to see what would be the best arrangement in regard of
Sofia and its immediate districts. The population of Sofia and
its district are, I believe, without exception, Bulgarian, and
it was thought wise, they being Bulgarians, that if possible it
should be included in Bulgaria. That was accomplished by
exchanging it for a district in which the population, if not
exclusively, are numerically Mahometan, and which, so far as
the fertility of the land is concerned, is an exchange highly

184 SPEECHES OF THE EAEL OF BEACON SFIELD.

to the advantage of the Porte. That, my lords., is a short
account of an arrangement which I know has for a month past
given rise in Europe, and especially in this country, to a belief
that it was in deference to Russia that Sofia was not retained,
and that by its not having been retained Turkey had lost the
means of defending herself, in the event of her being again
plunged into war.

My lords, it has also been said, with regard to the line of
the Balkans, that it was not merely in respect of the possession
of Sofia that an error was committed, but that]the Congress made
a great mistake in not retaining Varna. My lords, I know that
there are in this assembly many members who have recollec-
tions— glorious recollections — of that locality. They will know
at once that if the line of the Balkans were established as the
frontier, it would be impossible to include Varna, which is to
the north of the Balkans. Varna itself is not a place of import-
ance, and only became so in connection with a system of forti-
fications, which are now to be rased. No doubt, in connection
with a line of strongholds, Varna formed a part of a system of
defence ; but of itself Varna is not a place of importance. Of
itself, it is only a roadstead, and those who dwell upon the im-
portance of Varna, and consider that it was a great error on the
part of the Congress not to have secured it for Turkey, quite
forget that between the Bosphorus and Varna, upon the coast
of the Black Sea, the Congress has allotted to Turkey a much
more important point on the Black Sea — the harbour of Burgos.
My lords, I think I have shown that the charges made against
the Congress on these three grounds — the frontiers of the
Balkans, the non-retention of Sofia, and the giving up of Varna
— have no foundation whatever.

Well, my lords, having established the Balkans as the fron-
tier of Turkey in Europe, the Congress resolved that south of
the Balkans, to a certain extent, the country should be formed
into a province, to which should be given the name of Eastern
Roumelia. At one time it was proposed by some to call it
South Bulgaria ; but it was manifest that with such a name
between it and North Bulgaria there would be constant
intriguing to bring about a union between the two provinces.

BERLIN TKEATY. 185

We therefore thought that the province of East Eoumelia should
be formed, and that there should be established in it a Govern-
ment somewhat different from that of contiguous provinces
where the authority of the Sultan might be more unlimited. I
am not myself of opinion that, as a general rule, it is wise to
interfere with a military Power which you acknowledge ; but
though it might have been erroneous as a political principle to
limit the military authority of the Sultan, yet there are in
this world other things besides political principles ; there are
such things as historical facts ; and he would not be a prudent
statesman who did not take into consideration historical facts
as. well as political principles. The province which we have
formed into Eastern Roumelia had been the scene of many
excesses, by parties on both sides, to which human nature looks
with deep regret ; and it was thought advisable, in making
these arrangements for the peace of Europe, that we should take
steps to prevent the probable recurrence of such events. Yet
to do this and not give the Sultan a direct military authority
in the province would have been, in our opinion, a grievous
error. We have therefore decided that the Sultan should have
the power to defend the barrier of the Balkans with all his
available force. He has power to defend his frontiers by land
and by sea, both by the passes of the mountains and the
ports and strongholds of the Black Sea. No limit has been
placed on the amount of force he may bring to bear with that
object. No one can dictate to him what the amount of that
force shall be ; but, in respect to the interior and internal
government of the province, we thought the time had arrived
when we should endeavour to carry into effect some of those
important proposals intended for the better administration of
the States of the Sultan, which were discussed and projected at
the Conference of Constantinople.

My lords, I will not enter into any minute details on these
questions ; they might weary you at this moment, and I have
several other matters on which I must yet touch ; but, generally
speaking, I imagine there are three great points which we shall
have before us in any attempt to improve the administration of
Turkish dominion. First of all — it is most important, and we

186 SPEECHES OF THE EAEL OF BEACONSFIELD.

have so established it in Eastern Roumelia — that the office of
Governor shall be for a specific period, and that, as in India, it
should not be for less than five years. If that system generally
obtained in the dominions of the Sultan, I believe it would be
of incalculable benefit. Secondly, we thought it desirable that
there should be instituted public assemblies, in which the
popular element should be adequately represented, and that the
business of those assemblies should be to levy and administer
the local finances of the province. And thirdly, we thought it
equally important that order should be maintained in this
province, either by a gendarmerie of adequate force or by a local
militia, in both cases the officers holding their commission from
the Sultan. But the whole subject of the administration of
Eastern Eoumelia has been referred to an Imperial Commission
at Constantinople, and this commission, after making its investi-
gations, will submit recommendations to the Sultan, who will
issue firmans to carry those recommendations into effect. I may
mention here, as it may save time, that in all the arrangements
which have been made to improve the condition of the subject-
races of Turkey in Europe, inquiry by local commissions where
investigation may be necessary is contemplated. Those com-
missions are to report their results to the chief commission ;
and, after the firman of the Sultan has been issued, the changes
will take place. It is supposed that in the course of three
months from the time of the ratification of the Treaty of Berlin
the principal arrangements may be effected.

My lords, I may now state what has been effected by the
Congress in respect of Bosnia — that being a point on which, I
think, considerable error prevails. One of the most difficult
matters we had to encounter in attempting what was the object
of the Congress of Berlin — namely, to re-establish the Sultan as
a real and substantial authority — was the condition of some of
his distant provinces, and especially of Bosnia. The state of
Bosnia, and of those provinces and principalities contiguous
it, was one of chronic anarchy. There is no language whicl
can describe adequately the condition of that large portion of
the Balkan peninsula occupied by Roumania, Servia, Bosnia
Herzegovina, and other provinces. Political intrigues, constant

BERLIN TREATY. 187

rivalries, a total absence of all public spirit, and of the pursuit
of objects which patriotic minds would wish to accomplish, the
hatred of races, the animosities of rival religions, and, above all,
the absence of any controlling power that could keep these
large districts in anything like order : such were the sad truths,
which no one who has investigated the subject could resist for
a moment. Hitherto, at least until within the last two years,
Turkey had some semblance of authority which, though it was
rarely adequate, and when adequate, was unwisely exercised,
still was an authority to which the injured could appeal, and
which sometimes might control violence. But the Turkey of
the present time was in no condition to exercise that authority.
I inquired into the matter of those most competent to give an
opinion, and the result of my investigation was a conviction
that nothing short of an army of 50,000 men of the best troops
of Turkey would produce anything like order in those parts, and
that, were the attempt to be made, it would be contested and
resisted, and might finally be defeated.

But what was to be said at a time when all the statesmen of
Europe were attempting to concentrate and condense the re-
sources of the Porte with the view of strengthening them — what
would have been the position of the Porte if it had to commence
its new career — a career, it is to be hoped, of amelioration and
tranquillity — by despatching a large army to Bosnia to deal with
those elements of difficulty and danger ? It is quite clear, my
lords, that such an effort at this moment by Turkey might bring
about its absolute ruin. Then what was to be done ? There
have been before, in the history of diplomacy, not unfrequent
instances in which, even in civilised parts of the globe, States
having fallen into decrepitude, have afforded no assistance to
keep order and tranquillity, and have become, as these districts
have become, a source of danger to their neighbours. Under
such circumstances, the Powers of Europe have generally looked
to see whether there was any neighbouring Power of a character
entirely different from those disturbed and desolated regions,
but deeply interested in their welfare and prosperity, who
would undertake the task of attempting to restore their tran-
quillity and prosperity.

188 SPEECHES OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD.

In the present case you will see that the position of Austria
is one that clearly indicates her as fitted to undertake such an
office. It is not the first time that Austria has occupied provinces
at the request of Europe to ensure that order and tranquillity,
which are European interests, might prevail in them. Not once,
twice, or thrice has Austria undertaken such an office. There
may be differences of opinion as to the policy on which Austria
has acted, or as to the principles of government which she has
maintained ; but that has nothing to do with the fact that,
under circumstances similar to those I have described as existing
in Bosnia and the provinces contiguous to it, Austria has been
invited and has interfered in the manner I have described, and
has brought about order and tranquillity. Austria in the present
case was deeply interested that some arrangement should be
made. Austria, for now nearly three years, has had upwards of
15,000 refugees from Bosnia, which have been supported by her
resources, and whose demands notoriously have been of a vexa-
tious and exhausting character. It was therefore thought ex-
pedient by the Congress that Austria should be invited to occupy
Bosnia, and not to leave it until she had deeply laid the foun-
dations of tranquillity and order. My lords, I am the last man
who would wish, when objections are made to our proceedings,
to veil them under the decision of the Congress ; it was a decision
which the plenipotentiaries of England highly approved. It
was a proposal which, as your lordships will see when you refer
to the protocols which I shall lay on the table, was made by my
noble friend the Secretary of State, that Austria should accept
this trust and fulfil this duty ; and I earnestly supported him
on that occasion.

My lords, in consequence of that arrangement cries have
been raised against our * partition of Turkey.' My lords, our
object has been directly the reverse, our object has been to pre-
vent partition. The question of partition is one upon which,
it appears to me, very erroneous ideas are in circulation..
Some two years ago — before, I think, the war had commenced,,
but when the disquietude and dangers of the situation were
very generally felt — there was a school of statesmen who were
highly in favour of what they believed to be the only remedy,

BERLIN TREATY. 189

what they called the partition of Turkey. Those who did not
agree with them were those who thought we should, on the
whole, attempt the restoration of Turkey. Her Majesty's
Government at all times have resisted the partition of Turkey.
They have done so because, exclusive of the high moral con-
siderations that are mixed up with the subject, they believed
an attempt, on a great scale, to accomplish the partition of
Turkey, would inevitably lead to a long, a sanguinary, and often
recurring struggle, and that Europe and Asia would both be
involved in a series of troubles and sources of disaster and
danger of which no adequate idea could be formed.

These professors of partition — quite secure, no doubt, in their
own views — have freely spoken to us on this subject. We have
been taken up to a high mountain and shown all the king-
doms of the earth, and they have said, ' All these shall be
yours if you will worship Partition.' But we have declined to
do so for the reasons I have shortly given. And it is a remark-
able circumstance that after the great war, and after the pro-
longed diplomatic negotiations, which lasted during nearly a
period of three years, on this matter, the whole Powers of
Europe, including Kussia, have strictly, and as completely as
ever, come to the unanimous conclusion that the best chance
for the tranquillity and order of the world is to retain the Sultan
as part of the acknowledged political system of Europe. My
lords, unquestionably after a great war — and I call the late war
a great war, because the greatness of a war now must not be
calculated by its duration, but by the amount of the forces
brought into the field, and where a million of men have
struggled for supremacy, as has been the case recently, I call
that a great war — but, I say, after a great war like this, it is
utterly impossible that you can have a settlement of any per-
manent character without a redistribution of territory and con-
siderable changes. But that is not partition. My lords, a
country may have lost provinces, but that is not partition. We
know that not very long ago a great country — one of the fore-
most countries of the world — lost provinces ; yet is not France
one of the great Powers of the world, and with a future — a
commanding future ?

190 SPEECHES OF THE EARL OF JBEACONSFIELD.

Austria herself has lost provinces — more provinces even
than Turkey, perhaps ; even England has lost provinces — the
most precious possessions — the loss of which every Englishman
must deplore to this moment. We lost them from bad govern-
ment. Had the principles which now obtain between the
metropolis and her dependencies prevailed then, we should not,
perhaps,' have lost those provinces, and the power of this Empire
would have been proportionally increased. It is perfectly true
that the Sultan of Turkey has lost provinces ; it is true that
his armies have been defeated ; it is true that his enemy is even
now at his gates ; but all that has happened to other Powers.
But a sovereign who has not yet forfeited his capital, whose
capital has not yet been occupied by his enemy — and that
capital one of the strongest in the world — who has armies and
fleets at his disposal, and who still rules over 20,000,000 of
inhabitants, cannot be described as a Power whose dominions
have been partitioned. My lords, it has been said that no
limit has been fixed to the occupation of Bosnia by Austria.
Well, I think that was a very wise step. The moment you
limit an occupation you deprive it of half its virtue. All those
opposed to the principles which occupation was devised to foster
and strengthen, feel that they have only to hold their breath
and wait a certain time, and the opportunity for their inter-
ference would again present itself. Therefore, I cannot agree
with the objection which is made to the arrangement with
regard to the occupation of Bosnia by Austria on the question
of its duration.

My lords, there is a point on which I feel it now my duty
to trouble your lordships, and that is the question of Greece. A
severe charge has been made against the Congress, and particu-
larly against the English plenipotentiaries, for not having
sufficiently attended to the interests and claims of Greece.
My lords, I think you will find, on reflection, that that charge
is utterly unfounded. The English Government were the first
that expressed the desire that Greece should be heard at the
Congress. But, while they expressed that desire, they com-
municated confidentially to Greece that it must on no account
associate that desire on the part of the Government with any

BERLIN TREATY. 191

engagement for the redistribution of territory. That was
repeated, and not merely once repeated. The Greek inhabit-
ants, apart from the kingdom of Greece, are a considerable
element in the Turkish Empire, and it is of the greatest im-
portance that their interests should be sedulously attended to.
One of the many evils of that large Slav State — the Bulgaria
of the San Stefano treaty — was, that it would have absorbed,
and made utterly to disappear from the earth, a considerable
Greek population. At the Congress the Greeks were heard, and
they were heard by representatives of considerable eloquence
and ability ; but it was quite clear, the moment they put their
case before the Congress, that they had totally misapprehended
the reason why the Congress had met together, and what were
its objects and character. The Greek representatives, evidently,
had not in any way relinquished what they call their great idea
— and your lordships well know that it is one which has no
limit which does not reach as far as Constantinople. But they
did mention at the Congress, as a practical people, and feeling
that they had no chance of obtaining at that moment all they
desired — that they were willing to accept as an instalment
the two large provinces of Epirus and Thessaly, and the island
of Crete. It was quite evident to the Congress, that the repre-
sentatives of Greece utterly misunderstood the objects of our
labours ; that we were not there to partition Turkey, and give
them their share of Turkey, but for a very contrary purpose ;
as far as we could, to re-establish the dominion of the Sultan on
a rational basis, to condense and concentrate his authority, and
to take the opportunity — of which we have largely availed our-
selves— of improving the condition of his subjects.

I trust, therefore, when I have pointed out to your lordships
this cardinal error in the views of Greece, that your lordships
will feel that the charge made against the Congress has no sub-
stantial foundation. But the interests of Greece were not neg-
lected, and least of all by Her Majesty's Government. Before
the Congress of Berlin, believing that there was an opportunity
of which considerable advantage might be made for Greece with-
out deviating into partition, we applied to the Porte to consider
the long-vexed question of the boundaries of the two States.

192 SPEECHES OF THE EAEL OF BEACONSFIELD.

The boundaries of Greece have always been inadequate and
inconvenient ; they ~are so formed as to offer a premium to
brigandage — which is the curse of both countries, and has led
to misunderstanding and violent intercourse between the
inhabitants of both. Now, when some redistribution — and a
considerable redistribution — of territories was about to take
place, now, we thought, was the opportunity for Greece to urge
her claim; and that claim we were ready to support ; and to
reconcile the Porte to viewing it in a large and liberal manner.
And I am bound to say that the manner in which our overtures
were received by the Porte was encouraging, and more than
encouraging. For a long period Her Majesty's Government have
urged upon both countries, and especially upon Greece, the
advantage of a good understanding between them. We urged
that it was only by union between Turks and Greeks that any
reaction could be obtained against that overpowering Slav
interest which was then exercising such power in the Peninsula,
and which had led to this fatal and disastrous war. More than
this, on more than one occasion — I may say, on many occasions
— we have been the means of preventing serious misunderstand-
ings between Turkey and Greece, and on every occasion we
have received from both States an acknowledgment of our good
offices.

We were, therefore, in a position to assist Greece in this
matter. But, of course, to give satisfaction to a State which
coveted Constantinople for its capital, and which talked of
accepting large provinces and a powerful island as only an
instalment of its claims for the moment, was difficult. It was
difficult to get the views of that Government accepted by
Turkey, however inclined it might be to consider a reconstruc-
tion of frontiers on a large and liberal scale. My noble friend
the Secretary of State did use all his influence, and the result
was that, in my opinion, Greece has obtained a considerable
accession of resources and strength. But we did not find on
the part of the representatives of Greece that response or that
sympathy which we should have desired. Their minds were in
another quarter. But though the Congress could not meet such
extravagant and inconsistent views as those urged by Greece —

BERLIN TEEATY. 193

views which were not in any way within the scope of the Con-
gress or the area of its duty — we have still, as will be found in
the treaty, or certainly in the protocol, indicated what we
believe to be a rectification of frontier, which would add
considerably to the strength and resources of Greece. There-
fore, I think, under all the circumstances, it will be acknow-
ledged that Greece has not been neglected. Greece is a
country so interesting, that it enlists the sympathies of all
educated men. Greece has a future, and I would say, if I
might be permitted, to Greece, what I would say to an indi-
vidual who has a future — * Learn to be patient.'

Now, my lords, I have touched upon most of the points
connected with Turkey in Europe. My summary is that at
this moment — of course, no longer counting Servia or Eou-
mania, once tributary principalities, as part of Turkey ; not
counting even the New Bulgaria, though it is a tributary prin-
cipality, as part of Turkey ; and that I may not be taunted
with taking an element which I am hardly entitled to place in
the calculation, omitting even Bosnia — European Turkey still
remains a dominion of 60,000 geographical square miles, with
a population of 6,000,000, and that population in a very great
degree concentrated and condensed in the provinces contiguous
to the capital. My lords, it was said, when the line of the
Balkans was carried — and it was not carried until after long
and agitating discussions — it was said by that illustrious states-
man who presided over our labours, that * Turkey in Europe
once more exists.' My lords, I do not think that, so far as
European Turkey is concerned, this country has any right to
complain of the decisions of the Congress, or, I would hope, of
the labours of the plenipotentiaries. You cannot look at the
map of Turkey as it had been left by the treaty of San Stefario,
and as it has been rearranged by the Treaty of Berlin, with-
out seeing that great results have accrued. If these results
had been the consequences of a long war — if they had been
the results of a struggle like that we underwent in the Crimea
— I do not think they would have been even then unsubstan-
tial or unsatisfactory. My lords, I hope that you and the
country will not forget that these results have been obtained

VOL. II. O

194 SPEECHES OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD,

without shedding the blood of a single Englishman ; and if
there has been some expenditure, it has been an expenditure
which, at least, has shown the resources and determination of
this country. Had you entered into that war— for which you
were prepared— and well prepared— probably in a month you
would have exceeded the whole expenditure you have now in-
curred.

My lords, I now ask you for a short time to quit Europe
and to visit Asia, and consider the labours of the Congress in
another quarter of the world. My lords, you well know that
the Russian arms met with great success in Asia, and that in
the treaty of San Stefano considerable territories were yielded
by Turkey to Russia. In point of population they may not
appear to be of that importance that they are generally con-
sidered ; because it is a fact which should be borne in mind
that the population which was yielded to Russia by Turkey
amounted only to about 250,000 souls ; and, therefore, if you
look to the question of population, and to the increase of
strength in a State which depends on population, you would
hardly believe that the acquisition of 250,000 new subjects is
a sufficient return for the terrible military losses which inevi-
tably must accrue from campaigns in that country. But
although the amount of population was not considerable, the
strength which the Russians acquired was of a very differei
character. They obtained Ears by conquest— they obtain*
Ardahan— another stronghold— they obtained Bayazid— at
the Valley of Alashkerd with the adjoining territory, whi<
contain the great commercial routes in that part of the wof
They also obtained the port of Batoum.

Now, my lords, the Congress of Berlin have so far sanctioi
the treaty of San Stefano that, with the exception of Bayazid
the valley I have mentioned — no doubt very important ex(
tions, and which were yielded by Russia to the views of
Congress — they have consented to the yielding of the place
have named to Russia. The Congress have so far approved
treaty of San Stefano that they have sanctioned the retent
by Russia of Kars and Batoum. Now the question arises-
the Congress having come to that determination — Was it

BEELIN TKEATY. 195

wise step on the part of the plenipotentiaries of Her Majesty
to agree to that decision? That is a question which may
legitimately be asked. We might have broken up the Con-
gress and said, ' We will not consent to the retention of these
places by Kussia, and we will use our force to oblige her to
yield them up.' Now, my lords, I wish fairly to consider what
was our position in this state of affairs. It is often argued as
if Eussia and England had been at war, and peace was nego-
tiating between the two Powers. That was not the case. The
rest of Europe were critics over a treaty which was a real
treaty that existed between Eussia and Turkey. Turkey had
given up Batoum, she had given up Kars and Ardahan, she
had given up Bayazid.

In an examination of the question, then, we must remember
that Eussia at this moment, so far as Europe is concerned, has
acquired in Europe nothing but a very small portion of territory,
occupied by 130,000 inhabitants. Well, she naturally expected
to find some reward in her conquests in Armenia for the sacri-
fices which she had made. Well, my lords, consider what those
conquests are. There was the strong fort of Kars. We might
have gone to war with Eussia in order to prevent her acquiring
Kars and Batoum, and other places of less importance. The
war would not have been, probably, a very short war. It would
have been a very expensive war— and, like most wars, it would
probably have ended in some compromise, and we should have
got only half what we had struggled for. Let us look these
two considerable points fairly in the face. Let us first of all
take the great stronghold of Kars. Three times has Eussia
captured Kars. Three times, either by our influence or by
other influences, it has been restored to Turkey. Were we to
go to war for Kars and restore it to Turkey, and then to wait
till the next misunderstanding between Eussia and Turkey,
when Kars should have been taken again ? Was that an occa-
sion of a casus belli ? I do not think your lordships would
ever sanction a war carried on for such an object and under
such circumstances.

Then, my lords, look at the case of Batoum, of which your
lordships have heard so much. I should have been very glad if

o 2

196 SPEECHES OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD.

Batoum had remained in the possession of the Turks, on the
general principle that the less we had reduced its territory in
that particular portion of the globe, the better it would be as
regards the prestige on which the influence of the Ottoman
Porte much depends there. But let us see what is this Batoum
of which you have heard so much. It is generally spoken of
in society and in the world as if it were a sort of Portsmouth —
whereas, in reality, it should rather be compared with Gowes. It
will hold three considerable ships, and if it were packed like the
London docks, it might hold six ; but in that case the danger,
if the wind blew from the north, would be immense. You
cannot increase the port seaward ; for though the water touching
the shore is not absolutely fathomless, it is extremely deep, and
you cannot make any artificial harbour or breakwater. Un-
questionably, in the interior the port might be increased, but
it can only be increased by first-rate engineers, and the ex-
penditure of millions of capital ; and if we were to calculate
the completion of the port by the precedents which exist in
many countries, and certainly in the Black Sea, it would not be
completed under half a century. Now is that a question for
which England would be justified in going to war with Russia ?
My lords, we have, therefore, thought it advisable not to grudge
Russia those conquests which have been made — especially after
obtaining the restoration of the town of Bayazid and its im-
portant district.

But it seemed to us the time had come when we ought to
consider whether certain efforts should not be made to put an
end to these perpetually recurring wars between the Porte and
Russia, ending, it may be, sometimes apparently^ compara-
tively insignificant results ; but always terminating with one
fatal consequence — namely, shaking to the centre the influence
and the prestige of the Porte in Asia, and diminishing its
means of profitably and advantageously governing that country.
My lords, it seemed to us that as we had now taken, and as
Europe generally had taken, so avowedly deep an interest in
the welfare of the subjects of the Porte in Europe, the time
had come when we ought to consider whether we could not do
something which would improve the general condition of the

t the

BERLIN TREATY. 197

dominions of the Sultan in Asia ; and, instead of these most
favoured portions of the globe every year being in a more
forlorn and disadvantageous position, whether it would not be
possible to take some steps which would secure at least tran-
quillity and order; and, when tranquillity and order were
secured, whether some opportunity might not be given to
Europe to develop the resources of a country which Nature has
made so rich and teeming.

My lords, we occupy with respect to this part of the world
a peculiar position, which is shared by no other Power. Our
Indian Empire is on every occasion on which these discussions
occur, or these troubles occur, or these settlements occur — our
Indian Empire is to England a source of grave anxiety, and
the time appeared to have arrived when, if possible, we should
terminate that anxiety. In all the questions connected with
European Turkey we had the assistance and sympathy sometimes
of all, and often of many, of the European Powers — because they
were interested in the question who should possess Constanti-
nople, and who should have the command of the Danube and the
freedom of the Mediterranean. But when we came to consider-
ations connected with our Oriental Empire itself, they naturally
are not so generally interested as they are in those which relate
to the European portion of the dominions of the Porte, and we
have to look to our own resources alone. There has been no
want, on our part, of invitations to neutral Powers to join with
us in preventing or in arresting war. Besides the great Treaty
of Paris, there was the tripartite treaty,1 which, if acted upon,
would have prevented war. But that treaty could not be acted
upon, from the unwillingness of the parties to it to act ; and
therefore we must clearly perceive that if anything could be
effectually arranged, as far as our Oriental Empire is concerned,
the arrangements must be made by ourselves. Now, this was
the origin of that Convention at Constantinople which is on
your lordships' table, and in that Convention our object was not
merely a military or chiefly a military object. Our object was
to place this country certainly in a position in which its advice

1 April 29, 1856, between England, France, and Austria, guaranteeing the
integrity of the Ottoman Empire.

198 SPEECHES OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELT).

and in which its conduct might at least have the advantage of
being connected with a military power and with that force
which it is necessary to possess often in great transactions,
though you may not fortunately feel that it is necessary to
have recourse to that force.

Our object in entering into that arrangement with Turkey
was, as I said before, to produce tranquillity and order. When
tranquillity and order were produced, we believed that the
time would come when the energy and enterprise of Europe
might be invited to what really is another continent, as far as
the experience of man is concerned, and that its development
will add greatly not merely to the wealth and the prosperity of
the inhabitants, but to the wealth and prosperity of Europe.
My lords, I am surprised to hear — for though I have not heard
it myself from any authority, it is so generally in men's mouths
that I am bound to notice it — that the step we have taken
should be represented as one that is calculated to excite the
suspicion or enmity of any of our allies, or of any State. My
lords, I am convinced that when a little time has elapsed, and
when people are better acquainted with this subject than they
are at present, no one will accuse England of having acted in
this matter but with frankness and consideration for other
Powers. And if there be a Power in existence to which we
have endeavoured to show most consideration from particular
circumstances in this matter it is France. There is no step of
this kind that I would take without considering the effect it
might have upon the feelings of France — a nation to whom we
are bound by almost every tie that can unite a people, and
with whom our intimacy is daily increasing. If there could
be any step which of all others was least calculated to excite
the suspicion of France, it would appear to be this — because
we avoided Egypt, knowing how susceptible France is with
regard to Egypt ; we avoided Syria, knowing how susceptible
France is on the subject of Syria ; and we avoided availing
ourselves of any part of the terra, firmo^ because we would not
hurt the feelings or excite the suspicions of France. France
knows that for the last two or three years we have listened to
no appeal which involved anything like an acquisition of terri-

BERLIN TREATY. 199

tory, because the territory which might have come to us would
have been territory which France would see in our hands with
suspicion and dislike.

But I must make this observation to your lordships. We
have a substantial interest in the East ; it is a commanding
interest, and its behest must be obeyed. But the interest of
France in Egypt, and her interest in Syria, are, as she acknow-
ledges, sentimental and traditionary interests ; and, although I
respect them, and although I wish to see in the Lebanon and
Egypt the influence of France fairly and justly maintained,
and although her officers and ours in that part of the world —
and especially in Egypt — are acting together with confidence
and trust, we must remember that our connection with the East
is not merely an affair of sentiment and tradition, but that we
have urgent and substantial and enormous interests which we
must guard and keep. Therefore, when we find that the progress
of Kussia is a progress which, whatever may be the intentions
of Eussia, necessarily in that part of the world produces such

»a state of disorganisation and want of confidence in the Porte,
it comes to this — that if we do not interfere in vindication of
our own interests, that part of Asia must become the victim of
anarchy, and ultimately become part of the possessions of
Eussia.

Now, my lords, I have ventured to review the chief points
connected with the subject on which I wished to address you —
namely, what was the policy pursued by us, both at the Con-
gress of Berlin and in the Convention of Constantinople ? I am
told, indeed, that we have incurred an awful responsibility by
the Convention into which we have entered. My lords, a pru-
dent minister certainly would not recklessly enter into any
responsibility ; but a minister who is afraid to enter into any
responsibility is, to my mind, not a prudent minister. We do
not, my lords, wish to enter into any unnecessary responsibility ;
but there is one responsibility'from which we certainly shrink ;
we shrink from the responsibility of handing to our successors
a weakened or a diminished Empire. Our opinion is, that the
course we have taken will arrest the great evils which are
destroying Asia Minor and the equally rich countries beyond.

200 SPEECHES OF THE EAKL OF BEACONSFIELD.

We see in the present state of affairs the Porte losing its influ-
ence over its subjects; we see a certainty, in our opinion, of
increasing anarchy, of the dissolution of all those ties which,
though feeble, yet still exist and which have kept society to-
gether in those countries We see the inevitable result of such
a state of things, and we cannot blame Eussia for availing herself
of it. But, yielding to Eussia what she has obtained, we say
to her — ' Thus far, and no farther.' Asia is large enough for
both of us. There is no reason for these constant wars, or fears
of wars, between Eussia and England. Before the circum-
stances which led to the recent disastrous war, when none of
those events which we have seen agitating the world had
occurred, and when we were speaking in ' another place ' of the
conduct of Eussia in Central Asia, I vindicated that conduct,
which I thought was unjustly attacked, and I said then — what
I repeat now — there is room enough for Eussia and England in
Asia.

But the room that we require we must secure. We have,
therefore, entered into an alliance — a defensive alliance —
with Turkey, to guard her against any further attack from
Eussia. We believe that the result of this Convention will be
order and tranquillity. And then it will be for Europe — for
we ask no exclusive privileges or commercial advantages — it
will then be for Europe to assist England in availing ourselves
of the wealth which has been so long neglected and undeveloped
in regions once so fertile and so favoured. We are told, as I
have said before, that we are undertaking great responsibilities.
From those responsibilities we do not shrink. We think that,
with prudence and discretion, we shall bring about a state of
affairs as advantageous for Europe as for ourselves ; and in that
conviction we cannot bring ourselves to believe that the act
which we have recommended is one that leads to trouble and
to warfare. No, my lords, I am sure there will be no jealousy
between England and France upon this subject. In taking
Cyprus the movement is not Mediterranean, it is Indian.
have taken a step there which we think necessary for th<
maintenance of our Empire and for its preservation in peace.

If that be our first consideration, our next is the development

BEELIN TKEATY. 201

of the country. And upon that subject I am told that it was
expected to-night that I should in detail lay before the House
the minute system by which all those results which years may
bring about are instantly to be acquired. I, my lords, am
prepared to do nothing of the kind. We must act with con-
siderable caution. We are acting with a Power, let me remind
the House, which is an independent Power — the Sultan — and
we can decide nothing but with his consent and sanction. We
have been in communication with that Prince — who, I may be
allowed to remind the House, has other things to think about,
even than Asia Minor ; for no man was ever tried, from his
accession to the throne till this moment, so severely as the
Sultan has been ; but he has invariably during his reign ex-
pressed his desire to act with England and to act with Europe,
and especially in the better administration and management of
his affairs. The time will come — and I hope it is not distant
• — when my noble friend the Secretary of State for Foreign
Affairs may be able to communicate to the House details of
these matters, which will be most interesting. But we must
protest against being forced into statements on matters of
importance, which are necessarily still immature. And we
must remember that, formally speaking, even the Treaty of
Berlin has not been ratified, and there are many things which
cannot even be commenced until the ratification of that treaty
has occurred.

My lords, I have now laid before you the general outline of
the policy we have pursued, both in the Congress of Berlin and
at Constantinople. They are intimately connected with each
other, and they must be considered together. I only hope that
the House will not misunderstand — and I think the country
will not misunderstand — our motives in occupying Cyprus, and
in encouraging those intimate relations between ourselves and
the Government and the population of Turkey. They are not
movements of war ; they are operations of peace and civilisation.
We have no reason to fear war. Her Majesty has fleets and
armies which are second to none. England must have seen
with pride the Mediterranean covered with her ships ; she must
have seen with pride the discipline and devotion which have

202 SPEECHES OF THE EAEL OF BEACONSFIELD.

been shown to her and her Government by all her troops,
drawn from every part of her Empire. I leave it to the illus-
trious duke, in whose presence I speak, to bear witness to the
spirit of imperial patriotism which has been exhibited by the
troops from India, which he recently reviewed at Malta. But
it is not on our fleets and armies, however necessary they may be
for the maintenance of our imperial strength, that I alone or
mainly depend in that enterprise on which this country is
about to enter. It is on what I most highly value — the con-
sciousness that in the Eastern nations there is confidence in
this country, and that, while they know we can enforce our
policy, at the same time they know that our Empire is an
Empire of liberty, of truth, and of justice.

203

DEFENCE OF MINISTERIAL POLICY IN GENERAL
AGAINST THE DUKE OF ARGYLL. May 16, 1879.

[In the middle of the month of May 1879, news reached this
country that the evacuation of Turkish territory by Russian troops
was all but completed, and that there were other main stipulations of
the Treaty of Berlin now on the point of fulfilment. The Duke of
Argyll took this opportunity of delivering a general attack upon the
whole position of the Government on both the Turkish and the
Afghan questions, deriding the Treaty of Berlin as only the treaty of
San Stefano in disguise, and accusing the Government of duplicity in
their dealings with the Ameer.]

THE EAEL OF BEACONSFIELD : My lords, you are aware,
as the noble duke has just reminded you, that at this
moment the Ameer of Afghanistan is a self-invited but honoured
guest in the English camp, with the avowed object of nego-
tiating a treaty of peace and friendship with the Queen of
England, and I may say that under those circumstances, when
I heard of the intended motion of the noble duke, and that he
was going to call the attention of the House to the results of
our foreign policy in Europe and Asia, I think I had some
reason yesterday to remind him of that state of affairs to which
I have referred, and to leave it with confidence to his discretion,
as I left it then, to observe a statesmanlike silence in the cir-
cumstances now existing. My lords, I have been deeply disap-
pointed in these expectations. At this very moment, when the
questions to which he has referred, such as the appointment of
a European resident in the cities of that Sovereign, when those
questions are still under consideration, and which at this very
moment are the subject of negotiations, the noble duke has
thought it proper, referring, as he said, only to the past, to

204 SPEECHES OF THE EAKL OF BEACONSFIELD.

treat these subjects in a manner — and in a manner which in
the present conditions of communication may in twenty-four
hours be known in those parts — which certainly may greatly
affect the carriage of those negotiations. When I consider these
circumstances, when I remember the position of the noble
duke, a man of eminence for his ability and so exalted in his
position, a man who has more than once been the trusted coun-
sellor of his Sovereign, when I see that such a man as he comes
forward, and with a criticism which I will not call malevolent,
but which certainly was envenomed, attacks the policy of the
Government which at this moment must be being weighed and
scanned with the most intense interest abroad, I must say that
I am greatly astonished. My Parliamentary experience has
not been little, but certainly in the course of that experience I
remember no similar instance of a person placed in so high a
position adopting the course which the noble duke has thought
it right to take.

For the reasons which I gave yesterday I shall certainly not
follow the noble duke into the subject to which he has referred.
My noble friend, when he addresses your lordships, will find that,
although for the moment he may have to sacrifice the gratifica-
tion of vindicating his personal honour, there are still various
matters with respect to Afghanistan to which the noble duke
has referred, to which it is necessary for him to allude. I, how-
ever, shall not touch upon them. Unfortunately for us, and
perhaps still more unfortunately for the noble duke himself, he
was not present when the debates in reference to Afghanistan
were held. Those of your lordships who were present at those
debates can scarcely accept as accurate the picture which the
noble duke drew of those discussions. Your lordships have
been told by the noble duke that you were obliged to consent
to a hurried vote, moved by Her Majesty's Government, who
had already committed the country to a certain policy with
regard to Afghanistan. Your lordships will recollect that, on
the contrary, the subject of the conduct of Her Majesty's
Government in reference to Afghanistan was discussed for thre
nights in this House. Your lordships will also remember that
with your indulgence I felt it to be my duty to wind up the

MINISTERIAL POLICY IN GENERAL, MAY 1879. 205

debate upon that occasion, and that, after our policy had been
criticised and assailed for three nights, I proved by the produc-
tion of a despatch written by the late Viceroy of India that if
the distinguished leaders of the Opposition had been in office,
they would have pursued exactly the same policy which we con-
ceived and which we had the courage to pursue. The result of
that debate was that when the matter came to a division one
of the largest majorities which we have ever had in this House
sealed with its confidence and its approbation the conduct of
Her Majesty's Government.

I will endeavour to follow the noble duke through the other
subjects which he dealt with in the order in which he intro-
duced them. The noble duke, as some compensation for the
attack which he made upon our Indian policy, commenced his
address by congratulating us. The noble duke congratulated
us upon the great fact that in part fulfilment of the Treaty of
Berlin the evacuation of Bosnia and Roumania had been com-
menced. The noble duke in congratulating us on that cir-
cumstance said that it was true at the same time that the
version which we now gave of the obligatory provision in the
Treaty of Berlin respecting the evacuation of those provinces was
not that which we had originally given of it, still that the fact
that the evacuation had commenced was so satisfactory that he
must congratulate us upon our success in bringing about an
agreement under which Eussia was to be allowed three more
months in which to complete the evacuation. I cannot accept
the compliments of the noble duke. I have always placed upon
the 22nd clause of the Treaty of Berlin exactly the same inter-
pretation which I understand the Government of Russia now
does. My noble friend and myself, who have worked together in
these transactions, have, I believe, never differed upon any single
point in reference to the treaty except this : I certainly under-
stood that when nine months were appointed for the occupation
of these provinces by the military forces of Russia, that period
should not include the time allowed for the evacuation of them,
which was to commence at the termination of that period of
nine months. Occupation and evacuation are different things,
and if the evacuation were to be commenced within the nine

206 SPEECHES OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD.

months the period of the occupation would be proportionately
shortened.

But, holding as I do that view of the subject, that is no
reason why we should agree to an unreasonable length of time
being taken in conducting the evacuation of those provinces.
The noble duke treated as a matter of course, and as a subject
upon which there could be no possible difference of opinion,
that Her Majesty's Government had agreed to extend the time
for the evacuation in those provinces to August 3. There is
not the slightest authority for any statement of the kind.
What we are bound by is the view now taken by the majority
of the signatories of the Berlin treaty, to the effect that the
evacuation was to commence on May 3 ; and it is to be com-
pleted within a reasonable time, which may be computed in
weeks rather than in months, but at all events in a moderate time,
as compared with the statement which the noble duke has
made. Therefore the noble duke, who prides himself upon his
memory, has actually complimented Her Majesty's Government
upon the circumstances which, if correct, would have been a
disgrace to them.

The noble duke then goes on to complain very much of the
manner in which he and his colleagues and friends have been
treated not in, but out of this House, and in so doing he ex-
hibited that sensitiveness which I have already more than once
observed is peculiar to the present Opposition. On this point
I did not think that the evidence of the noble duke was adequate
to the occasion. He quoted an extract from a speech of
noble friend, and he also quoted from the anonymous com
spondence of an unknown society. When a subject of this
character is brought before your lordships on a solemn occasioi
and when charges of this nature are made against Her Majesty's
Government, I do not myself much care what people say about
me, and I have not much time to make remarks about others
Some distinguished members of Her Majesty's Opposition, how-
ever, who have appeared in different parts of the country, seem t(
have spared no time in the preparation of their attacks upoi
Her Majesty's Government. Upon that subject I will s
nothing further than this : I make no charge against either

MINISTERIAL POLICY IN GENERAL, MAY 1879. 207

the two noble lords the leaders of the Opposition in either
House of Parliament. Their conduct has at all times, and
especially at critical periods, been such as was to be expected
from gentlemen and distinguished statesmen who felt the
responsibilities of their position.

That, however, cannot be said of all the members of the
party. Although I shall notice nothing of a merely personal
nature, I must say that it is much to be regretted that after so
solemn an act as the Treaty of Berlin was executed, and when
united Europe had agreed to look upon the treaty as some
assurance for the maintenance of peace and for the general wel-
fare of the world, certain members of the Opposition should,
not once, twice, nor thrice, but month after month, habitually
declare to the world that the treaty was utterly impracticable,
and have used such external influence as they might possess to
throw every obstacle and impediment in the way of carrying
that treaty into practical effect. Look at the probable result
of such action. If statesmen have pledged their opinion over
and over again that a treaty is impracticable, if they become
responsible ministers, they will be called upon by those who do
not wish the treaty to be fulfilled to carry their opinions into
effect.

Then says the noble duke, ' I come now to business.
You have negotiated a treaty, but what have you done for
Turkey?' And the noble duke for a considerable time — for
more than half an hour — made an impassioned appeal to the
House, with a view of showing us what ought to have been
done for Turkey. From a minister responsible, I believe, for
the Crimean War, such a speech might have been expected,
and, in fact, the strongest part of the oration of the noble
duke was an impassioned argument in favour of going to war
with Russia in order to preserve the settlement made at the
end of the Crimean War. * Well,' says the noble duke, ' what
have you done ? See the losses to Turkey which you have
brought about. There is Batoum, a most valuable harbour,
which will be fortified by the Russians whatever ma • be the
engagement they have made by the Treaty of Berlin, \Doyou
mean to say, if you had acted with sufficient vigour, that you

208 SPEECHES OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD.

could not have prevented Kussia taking Batoum, with your
great fleet in the Black Sea ? ' Well, no doubt we could have
prevented Russia taking Batoum, as we prevented Russia taking
Constantinople. But is the noble duke prepared, or was he
prepared, to go to war to prevent Russia taking Batoum — a
port which with derision the noble duke describes as one which
Russia has made a free port. But the noble duke quite forgot
to say that it was not only made by the Treaty of Berlin a free
port, but a port essentially commercial — words which have
some meaning and by which the signatories of the Treaty of
Berlin will always be bound. The noble lord says also, ' I can
see what will happen in Batoum. It will be a free port, but a
fortified one. It will be a strong place and will control the
commerce of Persia.' But all this was said of the treaties of
1828 with regard to the harbour of Poti. The very same ex-
pression was used and England was warned that by obtaining
the harbour of Poti Russia had obtained such a commanding
position that the Black Sea would be entirely at her mercy.
The noble duke quite forgot to tell us this, that under the
Treaty of Berlin the finest port in the Black Sea, the port of
Burgas, was restored to the Sultan. This the noble duke, who
is so candid, omitted to bring to your lordships' recollection.

' Well,' then says the noble duke, < how can you reconcile
yourselves to the fact that you have agreed to the destruction of
the Danubian fortresses — that quadrilateral of the East which
would have commanded the Danube ? ' One would suppose,
from the way in which the noble duke has spoken to-night,
that there had never been any war between Russia and Turkey.
One would suppose that Turkey had never been utterly van-
quished, and that the army of Russia had never been at the
gates of Constantinople. Surely the claims of Russia, whether
right or wrong, had to be considered. However we might
approve or disapprove the casus belli and the policy of the war
— whatever differences of opinion there might be upon these
and similar points — no one could deny for a moment that
Russia had completely vanquished Turkey ; and to suppose in
these circumstances that everything was to be left exactly in
the same position as at the beginning of the war is an assump-

MINISTEKIAL POLICY IN GENEKAL, MAY 1879. 209

tion which I think your lordships will agree is not a very
reasonable one. But look at the merits of the case. These
fortresses, under the new system, would have become Bul-
garian fortresses, our policy being to maintain the Turkish
Empire — a policy, allow me in passing to remind your lord-
ships, which is universal in Europe, because every one of the
Great Powers who have signed the Treaty of Berlin agreed in
this one point, that there was no substitute for the Turkish
power, and that that power, though it might be reduced, should
still be substantially maintained. * But,' says the noble duke,
4 the proposal to destroy these fortresses was made by the
Kussians themselves.' It matters little, but I believe the noble
duke is inaccurate in that respect. The proposal to destroy
the fortresses of the Quadrilateral was not a new one. It had
been made on previous occasions, and it was always put forward
by Kussia in order to show that the Eussians themselves did
not wish to obtain these powerful strongholds.

Then says the noble duke, — ' You have by the Treaty of
Berlin, which is but a revised edition of the treaty of Sah
Stefano, established Servia as an independent State and in-
creased its territory ! ' But the situation of Servia before the
war with reference to its connection with the Porte was one of
virtual independence. The Porte certainly was the suzerain
and possessed a claim to a very small tribute, but it was in
reality a nominal one, for it was never paid. To pretend that
the public acknowledgment of the independence of Servia
was a great blow to the Turkish power which it was our policy
to maintain is really trifling with so serious a subject as that
which is now before your lordships. Fourthly, the noble duke
says that we have deluded the people, who are, according to
him, so easily deceived by the arrangement made concerning
Roumelia. The Sultan, according to the noble duke, has no
more to do with Eoumelia than he has with Roumania itself.
But the noble duke forgets the fact that by the Treaty of
Berlin the political and military authority of the Sultan is not
only asserted, but secured.

It is not simply that he has the right of occupying the
. Balkan chain ; nor is it simply that he has the power of occupy-

VOL. II. P

210 SPEECHES OF THE EAKL OF BEACONSFIELD.

ing Burgas, the most important port in the Black Sea. Although
we have secured autonomy for Roumelia, and although the
Sultan has not yet the blessing of the scheme of local govern-
ment, which I trust will soon be tried, and which apparently, so
far as I can judge, is admirably adapted to the circumstances of
the case, his political authority is still asserted. The noble duke
forgets the conditions in accordance with which all the officers
of the militia and gendarmerie must be appointed by the Sultan.
Well, these are the different points by which the noble duke has
endeavoured to show that as regards the settlement of Berlin
the interests of Turkey and of the Sultan have been neglected
and injured by Her Majesty's Government. My lords, when the
noble duke first gave notice his intention was to call the atten-
tion of the House to the results of the foreign policy of Her
Majesty's Government in Europe and Asia. Well, yesterday
we heard from the noble duke that he would not trench upon
the future. But how you are to judge of a policy if you are
not to treat of the future which will be the result of that policy,
I really find some difficulty in ascertaining.

Let us take a larger and more candid view than the noble
duke has taken of those important matters of four years' dura-
tion in the East. What led to this Treaty of Berlin ? It was
four years ago, the noble duke reminds us, when certain desires
first arose among the border populations of Turkey in Europe.
After two months of disaster, during which there were com-
munications between the Powers, there came the famous instru-
ment called the Andrassy Note. That was in December 1875,
and was the commencement of those diplomatic campaigns and
wars. I am sure your lordships do not wish to hear much about
the Andrassy Note, but I believe the noble duke has completely
misapprehended the whole situation — the conduct of Her
Majesty's Government and the principles on which their policy
was established. The Andrassy Note was the very elaborate
proposition of a mode of ameliorating the subject populations
in European Turkey. Well, the first feeling of Her Majesty's
Government was not to accept that note. They remembered
their engagements under the Treaty of Paris, and they knew the
danger which might occur from again disturbing the settlement

MINISTERIAL POLICY IN GENERAL, MAY 1879. 211

then made. But, my lords, when we investigated that docu-
ment we found really that the Porte was not called upon to
make any concession or to enter into any engagement which
they had not by previous irades themselves undertaken to con-
cede and to act upon. Well, it is possible that our fear of con-
tributing to the disturbances in Europe might have prevented
our even then acceding to that note. But I remember it was
at the solicitation of the Porte itself, when it heard that there
was a possibility of England holding out, that we ultimately
acceded.

I believe, my lords, that after the Andrassy Note there
was a bonafide attempt on the part of the Porte to meet the
difficulties of the case. But consider what were the conditions
of affairs at that moment. Those disturbances were in the
border provinces of the Turkish dominions. The central power
was wonderfully relaxed. The provincial administration was
incompetent and corrupt. The chiefs in the mountain districts
were always at civil war and plundering their neighbours who
did not resist them, and in this state of affairs it was that we
thought some decided action should be taken, and after a few
months a proposition was made in the form of the famous
Berlin memorandum, which, if we had agreed to, we should then
have joined the other Powers in, in fact, making war upon
Turkey. We refused to do that, and Parliament and the
country entirely sanctioned the policy we then pursued in
declining to accept the Berlin memorandum. My lords, almost
simultaneously with the introduction of the Berlin memorandum
there occurred the assassination of the European consuls at
Salonica. Soon afterwards there was a revolution in Constanti-
nople, the deposition of the Sovereign by force, and other cir-
cumstances of the most painful nature, which I need not recall
to the recollection of your lordships. Well, after this came the
Bulgarian insurrection, and after that the Servian declaration
of war against Turkey, which ended in the complete defeat of
Servia by Turkey.

Then what did Her Majesty's Government do ? It was at
that time, when Russia, having interfered in consequence of
the prostrate state of Servia, with her ultimatum, and by her

p 2

212 SPEECHES OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD .

menace forced Turkey to make peace, or grant an armistice
equivalent to peace with Servia — it was then that Her Majesty's
Government came forward with a proposition which became
celebrated, and that was to establish autonomy in those pro-
vinces which had been so long the scene and theatre of this
reckless misgovernment. And then the noble duke says that
our conduct has been such that we have necessarily lost the
affections and confidence of the then subject races of Turkey.
My lords, it was my noble friend on the cross benches l who had
the honour of making these distinct propositions with regard to
Bosnia and Herzegovina which were ultimately to be applied to
Bulgaria. And let me remind the noble duke, who speaks of us
as on all occasions neglecting the interests and not sympathising
with the fortunes of the Christian races, that we were the first
Government that laid down the principle that the chief remedy
for this miserable state of affairs was the introduction of a
large system of self-government, and above all of the principle
of civil and religious liberty.

My lords, I am obliged, on an occasion like the present, to
very much curtail remarks which I would wish to place before
you, but it is necessary after the speech of the noble duke that
I should remove impressions which are absolutely unfounded
— that I should recall to your recollection what are the princi-
ples on which the policy of Her Majesty's Government is
founded, and show your lordships that the noble duke has
entirely mistaken that policy. I must point out that the noble
duke has imputed to us motives which we never acknowledged,
and conduct and feelings toward others which we never shared.
Now, has there been any inconsistency in our policy ? When
war between Russia and Turkey was so imminent that it was a
question of hours, my noble friend upon the cross benches pro-
posed that there should be a Conference at Constantinople, at.
which my noble friend near me should be our plenipotentiary.
Has the noble duke, who studies these matters, who not only
makes long speeches, but writes long books about them — has
the noble duke ever heard, or has he forgotten the instructions
given to my noble friend near me by my noble friend on the

1 Lord Derby.

MINISTERIAL POLICY IN GENERAL, MAY 1879, 213

cross benches — instructions as to the course he was to pursue
at the Conference at Constantinople ?

I cannot, my lords, venture to refer to those instructions
which lie before me, at any length ; but I may remind you of
some of their salient points. In one paragraph my noble friend
was instructed that it became requisite in the then crises to take
steps by an agreement between the Powers for the establishment
of reform in the Turkish provinces which would combine the
elective principle with external guarantees for efficient adminis-
tration. Then the means are indicated by which that state of
things might be brought about. Well, my lords, that is but a
specimen to show the purport of those instructions, which com-
pletely mastered the application of the principle of autonomy ;
and no Government in Europe at this Conference was so ready,
so prepared, or so practical in its propositions by which the wel-
fare of the subject races and a general reform of the administra-
tion of Turkey could be affected as was the Government of
England, so represented at the Conference by my noble friend.
And yet the noble duke comes down here and makes an inflam-
matory harangue, and speaks of the deplorable consequences
which he fears will arise — that we have lost for ever the con-
fidence and affection of the subject races of Turkey by our utter
disregard of their feelings and neglect of their interests. Why,
my lords, if I were to read to you this minute of my noble friend
near me of the proposition which he himself made as regards
Montenegro, Servia, the two principalities Bosnia and Herze-
govina, and Bulgaria, and the reforms that might be established
in all the provinces of Turkey, you would see that at the Con-
ference of Constantinople he endeavoured to have carried into
effect as much as he possibly could the policy of autonomy
which had been laid down in the instructions prepared by my
noble friend on the cross benches.

Well, my lords, you know very well what occurred. We
failed — not England only — but Europe failed in preventing war.
Our objects were twofold. We wished to maintain Turkey as
an independent political State. It is very easy to talk of the
Ottoman power being at the point of extinction. But when you
come practically to examine the question there is no living

214 SPEECHES OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD.

statesman who has ever offered or propounded any practical
solution of the difficulties which would occur if the Ottoman
Empire were to fall to pieces. One result would probably be a
long and general war, and that alone, I think, is a sufficient
reason for endeavouring to maintain as a State the Ottoman
Empire. But, while holding as a principle that the Ottoman
Empire must be maintained as a State, we have always been of
opinion that the only way to strengthen it was to improve the
condition of its subjects. My lords, I do not say this out of
vague philanthropy, or any of that wild sentimentalism which is
vomited in the society which is sometimes called political. No,
my lords, it was our conviction that that was the only means by
which the maintenance of the Ottoman Empire could be
secured ; and we have acted accordingly.

Until the war commenced we consistently endeavoured —
first, to prevent war, and, secondly, to ameliorate the condition
of the subject races of the Porte ; and when the war took place
we determined that when peace was negotiated it should not be
negotiated with out the knowledge and sanction of Great Britain.
We are told, my lords, that the Treaty of Berlin did nothing for
the Sultan. Looking to the first object of our policy, which was
the maintenance of the Sultan, let me show what our signature
to the Treaty of Berlin produced as regards the political position.
Bulgaria was confined to the north of the Balkans instead of the
arrangement that was made under the treaty of San Stefano ;
Thrace, Macedonia, and the littoral of the ^Egean were restored
to the Sultan ; the Slav principalities of Servia and Montenegro
were restricted within reasonable limits ; the disturbed districts
of Bosnia and Herzegovina were placed under the administra-
tion of Austria, which was thus offered as a barrier to Slav
aggression ; and Eastern Eoumelia was created with an organic
statute which, if wisely accepted by the people of that province,
would make them one of the most prosperous communities in
the world. The noble duke tells us that the Treaty of Berlin is
a political imposture, and that we are found out. Let me plact
before your lordships very briefly what was the state of affairs
effected by the treaty of San Stefano,1 and what was the state
1 Vide preceding speech on Treaty of Berlin.

MINISTERIAL POLICY IN GENERAL, 3L1Y 1879. 215

of affairs effected by the Treaty of Berlin, remembering that the
noble duke dinned into our ears that the Treaty of Berlin was
only a copy of the treaty of San Stefano.

At the time the treaty of San Stefano was signed, or immedi-
ately before it was signed, the Russian armies were at the gates
of Constantinople. They occupied the greater part of the east
and north of European Turkey. A vast Slav State was to
stretch from the Danube to the ^Egean shores, extending
inwards from Salonica to the mountains of Albania — a State
which when formed would have crushed the Greek population,
exterminated the Mussulmans, and exercised over the celebrated
straits that have so long been the scene of political interest the
baneful and irresistible influence of the Slavs. That was the
state of affairs when the treaty of San Stefano was signed, and
the British Government, with great difficulty but with equal
determination, succeeded in having that treaty submitted to
the consideration of the Congress — the Congress of Berlin. And
what were the results of that Congress ? I have placed before
your lordships the main features of the settlement of San
Stefano. Let me now place before your lordships what were
the results of the Treaty of Berlin. In the first place the
Russian armies quitted their menacing positions at the gates
of Constantinople. That city, notwithstanding many promises,
was not entered. The Russian armies gradually retired, and at
last quitted Adrianople and all that district, and they are now
evacuating Bulgaria and Roumelia in consequence of the Treaty
of Berlin. Bulgaria itself by the Treaty of Berlin becomes a
vassal and tributary province of the Porte. Eastern Roumelia
becomes a province governed by an organic statute which
secures local representation, provincial administration, civil and
religious liberty, and many other conditions and arrangements
which it would be wearisome now to enter into, but which some
day and shortly I am sure your lordships will read with interest.

The condition of Crete was one of the most unsatisfactory,
but it was met by an organic statute which has the sympathy of
the whole population. Montenegro by the Treaty of Berlin got
that accession of territory which really was necessary to its exist-
ence, and that access to the sea which was necessary to its pros-

216 SPEECHES OF THE EAEL OF BEACONSFIELD.

perity. Servia obtained independence by fulfilling the conditions
of the Congress of Berlin, that the independence of no new State
should be acknowledged which did not secure principles of
religious liberty in its constitution ; and Roumania also would
have been equally acknowledged had not difficulties arisen on
that subject, which, however, will be overcome, I have reason to
believe, and which certainly England, and no doubt the other
signatories of the Treaty of Berlin will endeavour to overcome.
Well, my lords, I think, after that, it cannot be said that the
Treaty of Berlin is a mere copy of the treaty of San Stefano. I
think, after that, it cannot be said that it is not one of those
great instruments which in all probability will influence the life
of Europe, and possibly have an even more extended influence
for a considerable time. I look upon it as an instrument which
has in it that principle of evolution which we hear of in other
matters equally interesting. I believe it will not only effect the
reforms which it has immediately in view, but that it will ulti-
mately tend to the general welfare of mankind.

The noble duke laughs at the idea of our effecting any
beneficial change in Asia Minor. Well, my lords, there is
nothing difficult or great that is not laughed at in the begin-
ning. The noble duke is not the man whom I should have
thought would have discredited the attempt that is making.
But nothing has been done in this way, says the noble duke.
Well, in the first place, if the noble duke supposes that the
regeneration of Asia Minor is to be like the occupation of
Bulgaria, an affair of nine weeks, he entertains views of Oriental
life and character which I venture to deny. But are there no
symptoms of change, and change for the better, even in Asia
Minor? I think the fact that an eminent statesman like
Midhat Pasha has been recalled from exile and appointed
governor of Syria — the first governor appointed for a term
of years which cannot be capriciously reduced — is one on
which we may congratulate ourselves, and I have reason to
believe that the influence of that statesman on his govern-
ment is great. We must also remember that under the Treaty
of Berlin there are a variety of commissioners of demarcation

MINISTERIAL POLICY IN GENEKAL, MAY 1879. 217

settling the boundaries of different States, and so carrying out
a work of inestimable value. The noble duke has made a war-
like speech. He has told Turkey that she has in us an ally on
whom she cannot depend. He has told Kussia that she has
only to pursue her policy of aggression, and that it will be
accepted by the English Government. And, as far as I can
understand him, the noble duke does not treat with any disap-
probation the policy of Russia in that respect.

Now, I wish to speak in another tone, but a sincere one, in
regard to Russia. I think I can, as an English minister, appeal
with pride on behalf of my colleagues and myself to the fact that
those great results in regard to the policy which we recom-
mended were, perhaps, not uninfluenced by the presence of a
magnificent British fleet, and by the firm tone in which Her
Majesty's Government communicated with St. Petersburg.
Notwithstanding, I willingly acknowledge there has been on the
part of Russia a spirit of wise forbearance, and I believe that
she is sincerely anxious to bring about in that part of the world
which has been the scene of all these disasters and distressing
circumstances a state of affairs which, not only for her own
sake, but for the sake of all, we should assist her in bringing
about. My lords, I have trespassed on your attention, but
the noble duke made so serious and so elaborate a charge
upon the Government that it was impossible for me to be
silent. I have not said many things I ought to have said,
and I may have said some things which I ought not to have
said ; but this I know. The noble duke says we are a most
powerful Government, but, says he, ' If you are a most power-
ful Government, it is only because you are powerful in Parlia-
ment.' Well, that is a state of affairs which it is very easy to
parallel in the history of this country. I know that in Oppo-
sition men do indulge in dreams. I have had experience of
Opposition, and I hope it has left me, it may be a wiser even
if a sadder man. I know that there are mirages that rise up
before the political eye which are extremely delightful and
equally deceptive ; and I say, knowing of what materials the
Parliament of England is formed, knowing whom I address now,

218

SPEECHES OF THE EAEL OF BEACONSFIELD.

and knowing who sit in the other House, where I was one of
their companions, I cannot but believe that the large majorities
which the noble duke has dwelt upon have been accorded to
the present Government because it was believed they were
a Government resolved to maintain the fame and strength of
England.

219

SPEECH ON ADDRESS. January 7, 1881.

[Lord Beaconsfield here reviews the policy of the new Government
in endeavouring to undo whatever their predecessors had accomplished
both in Eastern Europe, in India, and in Ireland. The charge was
denied by Lord Granville, who declared that at the Foreign Office the
policy of the late Government was being steadily carried out.]

THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD, who was cheered on
rising, said, — My lords, I wish I could feel it my duty
to treat the matters before us to-night in as pleasant a manner
as the two noble lords who have just addressed us have done.
I agree with my noble friend and neighbour who moved the
address that the times are critical, and, although I am sure
that your lordships are not pessimists, and although, whatever
my errors are, pessimism is not generally among the imputations
made against me, I confess I have never addressed Parliament
with a more deep sense of anxiety and gloom than that which
the present state of affairs brings me to feel. There have been
occasions in which our foreign affairs have filled us with anxiety,
occasions on which our colonial position has been very critical.
There have been occasions before this on which our domestic
interests, influenced by Ireland, filled the nation with alarm.
There have been occasions also in which events have occurred
which have demanded the serious attention of Parliament, and
which cannot, perhaps, be ranged under the heads I have
noticed. But, my lords, I do not recollect a time in which,
not only our foreign relations, not only our position in important
colonies, not only the almost unparalleled state of our relations
with Ireland, but the many other troubles which may require
your attention this session, all at the same time have occurred
and have demanded the deepest consideration, the deepest
sense of responsibility, on the part of your lordships. And, my

220 SPEECHES OF THE EAEL OF BEACONSFIELD.

lords, I am bound to say that I cannot help feeling that much
of the disaster with which we have to grapple at present, is to
be attributed in a great degree to the spirit in which Her
Majesty's present ministers acceded to office.

My lords, in old days, in times within our experience, when
there was a change of administration, it was always considered
the duty of both parties to effect no more alteration in the
general conduct of our affairs than was absolutely necessary.
On former occasions it was generally understood that though
there ought to be, and, of course, there was, a due assertion of
differences of party principle, still, so far as it was possible,
unnecessary changes were to be discouraged in the general con-
duct of our affairs, so that there should be some continuity of
policy ; and though there were imputations made, I fear some-
times with justice, but often very unjustly, against our parlia-
mentary government, of the inconsistency in which it involved
our affairs, very frequently parliamentary government could not
justly be open to that imputation. "Well, my lords, it must be
admitted that this action to which I have referred introduced
some feeling of magnanimity into public life, and its absence is
very much to be regretted. No doubt it added greatly to the
strength of our functions. But when the new administration
was formed nothing of the kind was done. On the contrary, in
every manner and on every occasion it was announced that the
change of Government meant a change in every part and portion
of the Government ; that everything which had been concluded
was to be repudiated ; that everything consummated was to be
reversed, and upon the most important questions, either of our
foreign relations, our colonial situation, or our domestic policy
with regard to Ireland, upon all these questions the utmost
change must immediately and rapidly be accomplished. Per-
petual and complete reversal of all that had occurred was
the order that was given and the profession that was an-
nounced.

See, my lords, how this has worked. Take the case which
the noble lord who has just addressed you adduced — take the
case of our foreign relations. The system of repudiating every-
thing that was approved, promoted, or carried into effect by

SPEECH ON ADDRESS, JANUARY 1881. 221

their predecessors, this system may be tried very well upon the
very subject to which the noble lord has referred. Everything
was to be altered. Well, though you might denounce and
abuse the Treaty of Berlin, you could not repudiate that treaty,
and you could not reverse it. The Treaty of Berlin, being so
completely disapproved of by the new Government, it was pro-
posed, most ingeniously, that, as there had been a Congress at
Berlin, there should also be a Conference at Berlin ; and it was
generally understood and felt by everyone that that meant that
the regulations of the Congress of Berlin were in fact to be
modified, changed, and superseded by the determinations of
the Conference. Now, how has that been accomplished ? In
my observations to-night I will avoid arguing on matters of
policy, for which there will be other occasions ; but all sensible
men will agree that, whatever may have been the defects of
the Treaty of Berlin — though I admit none — or the points that
may have been neglected or left unsettled, one thing was quite
clear and was generally admitted, that at last the peace of
Europe was secured. I believe that the Conference of Berlin
had the contrary effect, and I think I am not using an un-
authorised expression when I say that the result of that Con-
ference was, that the war in the East of Europe and in the
West of Asia was on the point of being revived, and England
was near being a belligerent, and a belligerent, too, against our
old ally. No one can say now that the peace of Europe is
certain, or that we are perfectly secure. We have very little
information on this subject, though I presume that more will
be afforded, but from what we see there is no doubt that even
in the space of twenty -four hours events may occur which
might shake that peace. What is the cause of all this ? It is
because Her Majesty's Government, directly they took office,
got into this system of superseding and disturbing everything
their predecessors had settled.

Now let me advert to another question — that, namely, of
Afghanistan. That is a question that must come before the
House, and I believe my noble friend the late Governor-General
of India will take an opportunity of bringing it before your
lordships' notice. Whatever may be our opinion as to the

222 SPEECHES OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD.

policy or impolicy of the military occupation of Afghanistan,
in this, I think, all will agree — that it was an event of great
political moment, and that it was undertaken in consequence
of information, part of which only has as yet been revealed to
the country, but which is adequate to enable them to learn
that it was preceded by startling incidents of conduct on the
part of another great Power, which demanded serious consider-
ation. Her Majesty's Government may be perfectly right in
the views they take on the subject of Afghanistan. The occu-
pation of that country may have been a most impolitic act,
and it may be their duty to counteract its effect, and to termi-
nate the policy that we attempted to establish. All this may
be perfectly true, but all impartial persons will feel that such a
step should be taken with great prudence, that it should be
taken gradually, and that ministers ought not to have gone to
the housetops to proclaim their peril to the world — their peril;
I may rather say their perplexity. We must remember also
that the military feat of the invasion and occupation of Afghan-
istan was no mean one. Karely have the discipline and valour
of our troops, both British and native, been more distinguished,
and, above all, we have produced a General equal to any con-
juncture of the war. These were all circumstances that won
respect in Asia and Europe ; but the ministers, as I say, go to
the housetops to proclaim to every bazaar in the East that they
do not know what to do, and that, after all this anxiety, they
are going to scuttle out of the country as fast as they can.

What I want your lordships chiefly to observe is the conse-
quence of such conduct, which is of the most destructive and
deleterious kind. It may have been our policy to quit Afghan-
istan, but if we quit it in this spirit and after such declarations
every military adventurer feels, ' This is my opportunity : the
British are going to leave this country, and I will succeed them
as far as I can.' Clearly, you have produced a state of anarchy,
and at last you say that you will consummate your confession
of impotence and blundering by giving up the city of Candahar.
But why has all this taken place ? Because there have been
declarations made on the subject, declarations of the most un-
measured kind ; because the country has been agitated to

SPEECH ON ADDEESS, JANUARY 1881. 223

believe that the change of Government would instantly termi-
nate the dangerous occupation of Afghanistan; and because
pledges made in total ignorance of the circumstances of the
case have now to be redeemed at the cost of the credit of the
country. Both in foreign affairs and in Afghanistan — in the
one because the peace of Europe is no longer assured but
menaced, and in the other because Central Asia is in a state of
anarchy — you have now to pay the cost of declarations made
in a polemical and not in a political sense to the people of the
country.

I must now touch on that subject which, after all, absorbs
all our thoughts at the present moment, and that is the subject
of Ireland. When the late Government were responsible for
the administration of affairs, the state of Ireland undoubtedly
caused much anxiety. In ordinary circumstances I believe the
skilful administration of my noble friend near me would in no
way have been disturbed ; but we had a terrible visitation, and
have at the same time to deal with a body of men who will
take advantage of distress to render the work of government
more difficult. Fortunately the famine was not as fatal as we
once feared, and the measures taken by the Government and
supported by private charity almost unprecedented, which,
under the direction of a noble lady, touched the hearts of the
Irish for the time, gave us every hope that we might proceed
without further disaster. The Peace Preservation Act certainly
had a beneficial effect, and greatly assisted the Government ;
and our opinion was, although we had before us information
which is, no doubt, well known to the present ministers, that it
would be possible to carry affairs safely through with the law
that then existed, and that, with the mitigation of the cala-
mity that then prevailed, we might grapple with the con-
spirators, who seek not merely separation from this country,
but the establishment of an independent foreign Power.

Just before the general election I felt it my duty, occupying
the position I then did, to place before the country issues which
I thought were of vast importance, and which demanded at that
critical time the consideration of the country. Not sitting in
the other House of Parliament, and therefore not having the

224 SPEECHES OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD.

privilege of addressing my old constituents, as in old days, 1
thought it becoming to address to the Lord-Lieutenant of
Ireland a letter, in which I called the attention of the country
to the state of Ireland. I placed before the country only two
points. I warned it to be most careful not to meddle thought-
lessly with foreign affairs, because I foresaw that if it did, there
would be a chance, and more than a chance, of a European war.
What has occurred has, I think, quite justified that warning;
but we can at least hope that, a war not having occurred, Her
Majesty's ministers may have been successful in preventing it.
But as regards Ireland, in my letter to the Lord-Lieutenant—
on March 8, I think it was — I warned the country that if the
Grovernment did not show a becoming vigilance, something
would happen which would be almost as bad as famine and
pestilence.

Now, what was the consequence of that declaration ? The
present Grovernment took an early opportunity, soon after I had
made that declaration, to express a contrary opinion. They
said there was in Ireland an absence of crime and outrage,
with a general sense of comfort and satisfaction such as was
unknown in the previous history of the country. Now, my
lords, that was the issue placed before the country to decide.
I warned the constituencies that there was going on in Ire-
land a conspiracy which aimed at the disunion of the two
countries, and probably something more. I said that if they
were not careful, something might happen almost as bad as
pestilence or famine. The country, on the other hand, was
immediately told that there was in Ireland a general sense of
comfort and satisfaction unprecedented in the history of that
country. Now there was a complete issue to be decided, and
the country decided that Ireland was in a state of comfort and
satisfaction. My observations, of course, were treated with
that ridicule which a successful election always secures. What
has occurred in Ireland since then? What is the state of
Ireland at this present moment ? I do not want to indulge in
exaggerated phrases, nor do I wish to use language that would
adequately express the horrors which have occurred in that
country. I think, however, I am not using exaggerated Ian-

SPEECH ON ADDRESS, JANUARY 1881. 225

guage when I say that in portions of Ireland the sovereignty
of our Queen has been absolutely superseded. • I think I am
not using exaggerated language when I say that Her Majesty's
Executive in Ireland have absolutely abdicated their functions.
I think I am not using exaggerated language when I say that
there have been months of murder and incendiarism and of
every conceivable outrage. I think I am not using exaggerated
language when I say that the Judges of the land have been
denounced and defied, and that the administration of justice
has altogether ceased ; and that the law — the Queen's law — is
no longer respected by the majority in that country.

What has been the occasion of this ? Why have not steps
been taken in proper time to prevent what everyone feels
might have been nipped in the bud ? Why, it was because of
these declarations that Ireland was in a state of comfort and
content, and because the person who made them, being the
most responsible person in the land, or about to become so,
felt it necessary to act in his political position in harmony with
his polemical one. Now, my lords, what happened when the
change of Grovernment took place ? The first thing that was
done was a very slight thing. We had established a Eoyal
Commission to inquire into the state of agriculture, not only
in England, but in Ireland. That Commission had reached
Ireland and was very busy in its operations. I believe there
never before was a Royal Commission formed with such anxiety
on the part of Grovernment that it should be an able, an
adequate, and an impartial commission. Every shadow of
opinion was represented and the ablest men were invited to sit
upon it. I speak with the greatest confidence, on this subject,
as I myself undertook the task of forming that Commission.
No sooner was the Grovernment changed, however, than a new
Royal Commission was appointed to inquire into the state of
agriculture in Ireland. What was the effect of that ? What-
ever the intention might have been, the effect was to make the
country understand that the new Grovernment could place no
confidence in the Royal Commission of the late administration.

Well, Her Majesty's Government being in office, the late
Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland naturally thought the time had come

VOL. II. Q

226 SPEECHES OF THE EARL OF BEACOXSFIELD.

when he ought to give them his opinion with regard to that
country. There had been very great anxiety to know what would
be the course of Her Majesty's Government in regard to the
continuance of the Peace Preservation Act. I think there was
at that time, if not a formal declaration, at least a general
understanding that probably the new Government would not
propose to continue that Act. But, however that may be, the
Lord-Lieutenant impressed upon Her Majesty's ministers his
opinion that the Peace Preservation Act should certainly be
continued. Noble lords will perfectly recollect what occurred
on that occasion. It has been said very frequently — I do not
mean in this House, for that would give it great authority —
but it has been said by what are called organs of opinion, which
are in communication with political personages of influence,
and which, therefore, speak with authority, that it was never
the intention of the late Government to continue the Peace
Preservation Act. That is not true. It is fortunate that I can
prove this in a manner which will be satisfactory to your lordships
and to the country, for a noble lord asked me a question on the
subject before the dissolution of Parliament. In my reply to
him, after deprecating the assumption of the noble lord that, as
a matter of course, I should be Prime Minister in the new
Parliament, of which I had very great doubt, I used these
words : — ' But it is by no means imprudent to assume that the
new Parliament will do its duty to the country, and that it will
repeat that Act, or, if necessary, support it with stronger
measures if they are required in the circumstances of the times.'
My letter to the Lord-Lieutenant involved the continuance of
the Peace Preservation Act. It remains as a positive fact that
the late Government were pledged to it. In regard to what
happened out of this House, there can be no question. We
had our own Bill drawn, and I am permitted to say that the
late Chief Secretary for Ireland, who unfortunately is no longer
a member of Parliament, offered that Bill very courteously to
his successor. His successor declined that offer, but he neces-
sarily had the advantage of the official information upon which
the late cabinet had determined to continue the Peace Pre-
servation Act. That information consisted of confidential

SPEECH ON ADDRESS, JANUARY 1881. 227

reports from seventy persons of the highest authority in this
matter. All that he had, which alone ought to have convinced
him that the time had arrived when that Act ought to be
continued. However, Her Majesty's Government took quite a
different view. They made up their minds, not only to give a
good shake to the Congress of Berlin, and to do everything
they could to inform every being in Central Asia, and in every
other part of Asia, that they meant to cut and run from the
scene of a splendid conquest, but, following the same plan of
throwing a stigma on everything which their predecessors had
proposed or executed, they determined that Ireland was to be
considered as a country in a state of comfort and satisfaction,
and they have from that moment been legislating and
administering affairs for a country in a state of comfort and
satisfaction.

As time has advanced they have changed their course.
Now, at the last moment, they are about to do so on a great
scale, because, unless they do it on a great scale, it is useless.
Why, if they had only deigned to follow in the steps of their
predecessors — if they had only partially done so — they would
not have found themselves in their present difficulties.
Was the country really so devoid of incident that there was
nothing to guide them as to the immediate future ? Parlia-
ment was prorogued on September 7, and the only allusion in
the Queen's Speech to the state of Ireland was an expression of
satisfaction that the condition of the people had been improved
by the harvest. Only a few days afterwards the murder of
Lord Mountnorris occurred. Your lordships know the condi-
tion of Ireland at the present time. Europe knows it, Asia
knows it. It is no longer, unhappily, a merely English ques-
tion. The honour, perhaps the existence, of England depends
upon our rallying our forces, not only with regard to Ireland,
but with regard to other scenes of disquietude and danger
which have been created by what has occurred in Ireland.

It may be said, If these are your views, why do you not call
upon Parliament to express them ? Well, I do not know any-
thing which would be more justifiable than an amendment on the
Address expressing our deep regret that measures for maintain-

o t

228 SPEECHES OF THE EAEL OF BEACONSFIELD.

ing peace and order, for guarding life and property, and, let
me add, liberty, which I think is equally in danger in Ireland,
were not taken in time, and pointing out that if such measures
had been taken in time an enormous number of terrible
incidents might have been averted ; that men would now have
been alive who have been murdered ; that houses would now
have been in existence which have been burned ; that cases of
torture to man and beast would never have happened — for
these things, as your lordships are aware, have mainly occurred
within the past two months. But, my lords, there are occasions
when even party considerations must be given up. There are
occasions when it may not be wise, even for your lordships, to
place yourselves, as it were, at the head of public opinion in
indignant remonstrance at the action of the ministry. The
great dangers and disasters which have been impending or
have happened in this country during the past nine months
have arisen from the abuse of party feeling ; and for that reason
alone, if there were no other, I would recommend your lordships
to pause before taking any step which would weaken the move-
ments of the administration at this moment. I conclude that
the Government have come to their determination in a bona
fide spirit. I expect that their Bills, when introduced, will be
found adequate to the occasion, for I am convinced that only
ridicule will result if they are not conceived in a comprehensive
spirit. I conclude also that it is their intention to proceed
with these Bills de die in diem, in order that some hope, some
courage may be given to our loyal and long-suffering subjects
in Ireland. When those Bills have been passed, we shall be
ready to consider any other measures which Her Majesty's
Government may bring before Parliament. But I think it
utter mockery to discuss any questions connected with Ireland
now, except the restoration of peace and order, the re-establish-
ment of the sovereignty of the Queen, and a policy that will
announce to Europe that the spirit of England has not ceased,
and that, great as are the dangers that now environ ministers,
the Parliament of England will be equal to the occasion.

PAET II.

INDIAN AND COLONIAL SPEECHES.

ROYAL TITLES BILL MARCH 9, 1876.

AFGHAN WAR DEC. 10, 1878.

WAR IN SOUTH AFRICA .... MARCH 16, 1879.

ANSWER TO DUKE OF ARGYLL . . FEB. 20, 1880.

EVACUATION OF CANDAHAR . . . MARCH 4, 1881.

ROYAL TITLES BILL.1 March 9, 1876.

[On February 17, 1876, Mr. Disraeli introduced a Bill for enabling
Her Majesty to adopt a new title for the sovereignty of India.
When it became known that the title selected was that of Empress, a
violent ferment was raised by the Opposition, who denounced the
attempt to introduce 'a bastard imperialism' into' the English
monarchy, and under cover of a new form to insinuate the thin
end of the wedge of military despotism. At this distance of time one
wonders at the violence displayed. It subsequently appeared that
the title of Empress was first applied to Her Majesty by the Duke of
Argyle when Secretary of State for India.]

IN moving the second reading of this Bill I take the oppor-
tunity of noticing a question which was addressed to me
a few days ago by the honourable member for Banbury.2 I
thought at the time that the question was unfair and improper.
The question was whether I was then prepared to inform the
House of the title which Her Majesty would be advised to
adopt with respect to the matter contained in the Bill before
us, and my answer was, that I was not then prepared to give
the information to the House. It appeared to me that that
appeal, as I ventured to remark, was unfair and improper, be-
cause, in the first place, on a controversial matter, it required
me to make a statement respecting which I could offer no
argument, as the wise rules of this House, as regards questions
and answers, are established. I should, therefore, have had to
place before the House, on a matter respecting which there is
controversy, the decision of the Government, at the same time
being incapacitated from offering any argument in favour of it.

1 This speech is reprinted from Hansard's Debates by permission of Mr.
Hansard.

2 Mr. B. Samuelson.

232 SPEECHES OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD.

I thought the question was improper, also, in the second place,
because it was a dealing with the royal prerogative that, to
say the least, was wanting, as I thought, in respect. Both
sides of the House agree that we are ruled by a strictly con-
stitutional Sovereign. But the constitution has invested Her
Majesty with prerogatives of which she is wisely jealous, which
she exercises always with firmness, but ever, when the feelings
and claims of Parliament are concerned, with the utmost con-
sideration. It is the more requisite, therefore, that we should
treat these prerogatives with the greatest respect, not to say
reverence. In the present case if Her Majesty had desired to
impart to the House of Commons information which the House
required, the proper time would certainly be when the Bill in
question was under the consideration of the House. It would
be more respectful to the House, as well as to the Queen, that
such a communication should be made when the House was
assembled to discuss the question before them ; and such in-
formation ought not to be imparted, I think, in answer to the
casual inquiry of an individual member.

From the beginning there has been no mystery at any time
upon this matter. So far as the Government are concerned they
have acted strictly according to precedent, and it has not been
in my power until the present evening to impart any information
to the House upon the subject on which they intimated a wish
to be informed. But, upon the first night, when I introduced
this Bill, I did say, alluding to the prerogative of the Queen,
and Her Majesty's manner of exercising that prerogative, that
I did not anticipate difficulties upon the subject. To this point,
in the course of the few observations I have to make, I shall
recur ; but, before doing so, I shall make some remarks upon
the objections which have been made to a title which it has
been gratuitously assumed that Her Majesty, with respect to
her dominions in India, wishes to adopt. It is a remarkable
circumstance that all those who have made objections on this
subject, have raised their objections to one particular title
alone. One alone has occurred to them — which prima, facie
is rather an argument in favour of its being an apposite title.
No doubt other objections have been urged in the debate, and

EOYAL TITLES BILL. 233

I will refer to them before proceeding to the other pait of my
remarks. It has been objected that the title of Emperor and
Empress denotes military dominion; that it has never or
rarely been adopted but by those who have obtained dominion
by the sword, retained it by the sword, and governed by the
sword ; and, to use the words of a right honourable gentleman l
who took part in the recent debate — ' Sentiment clothes the
title of Emperor with bad associations.'

Now, the House must at once feel what vague and shadowy
arguments — if they can be called arguments — are these :
* Sentiment clothes the title of Emperor with bad associations.'
I very much doubt whether sentiment does clothe the title of
Emperor with bad associations. I can remember, and many
gentlemen can remember, the immortal passage of the greatest
of modern historians, where he gives his opinion that the hap-
piness of mankind was never so completely assured or so long
a time maintained as in the age of the Antonines, and the
Antonines were emperors. The honourable gentleman may be
of opinion that an imperial title is a modern invention, and its
associations to him may be derived from a limited experience,
of which he may be proud. But when so large a principle is
laid down by one distinguished for his historical knowledge, that
' Sentiment clothes the title of Emperor with bad associations,'
I may be allowed to vindicate what I believe to be the truth
upon this matter. Then a second objection was urged — it was
said, ' This is a clumsy periphrasis in which you are involving
the country if you have not only royal but imperial majesties.'
Now, the right honourable gentleman who made the remark,
ought to have recollected that there would be no clumsy peri-
phrasis of the kind. The majesty of England requires for its
support no epithet. The Queen is not Her Eoyal Majesty.
The Queen is described properly as Her Majesty. Therefore
the clumsy periphrasis of ' Koyal and Imperial ' Majesty could
never occur.

There is, however, a stronger and more important objection
which has been brought to this title of Empress. Put briefly
and concisely it is this — that we diminish the supremacy of
1 Mr. Lowe, afterwards Lord Sherbrook.

234 SPEECHES OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD.

the queenly title by investing Her Majesty, though only locally,
with an imperial dignity. I deny that any imperial dignity is
superior to the queenly title, and I defy anyone to prove the
reverse. (Hear.) I am happy to have that cheer; but I hear
and read every day of an intention to invest Her Majesty with
a title superior to that which she has inherited from an illus-
trious line of ancestors. It is necessary, therefore, to notice
this statement. In times which will guide us in any way upon
such a subject, I doubt whether there is any precedent of an
emperor ranking superior to a crowned head, unless that
crowned head was his avowed feudatory. I will take the most
remarkable instance of imperial sway in modern history.
When the Holy Roman Empire existed, and the German
Emperor was crowned at Rome and called Csesar, no doubt the
princes of Germany, who were his feudatories, acknowledged
his supremacy, whatever might be his title.

But in those days there were great kings — there were kings
of France, and kings of Spain, and kings of England — they
never acknowledged the supremacy of the Head of the Holy
Roman Empire, and the origin, I have no doubt, of the ex-
pression of the Act of Henry VIII., where the crown of England
is described as an imperial crown, was the determination of
that eminent monarch that a*t least there should be no mis-
take upon the subject between himself and the Emperor
Charles V. These may be considered antiquarian illustrations,
and I will not dwell upon them, but will take more recent
cases at a time when the intercourse of nations and of Courts
was regulated by the same system of diplomacy which now
prevails. Upon this question, then, I say there can be no mis-
take, for it has been settled by the assent, and the solemn
assent, of Europe. In the middle of the last century a remark-
able instance occurred which brought to a crisis this contro-
versy, if it were a point of controversy. When Peter the
Great emerged from his anomalous condition as a powerful
sovereign — hardly recognised by his brother sovereigns — he
changed the style and title of his office from that of Czar to
Emperor. That addition was acknowledged by England and
by England alone. The rulers of Russia as Emperors remained

ROYAL TITLES BILL. 235

unrecognised by the great comity of nations ; and after
Peter the Great they still continued to bear the titles of Czar
and Czarina ; for more than one female sovereign flourished in
Russia about the middle of the century. In 1745, Elizabeth,
Czarina of Russia, having by her armies and her councils
interfered considerably in the affairs of Europe — probably
(though I am not sure of this) influenced by the circumstances
that the first Congress of Aix la Chapelle, in the middle of
the last century, was about to meet — announced to her allies
and to her brother sovereigns that she intended in future to
take the title of Empress, instead of Czarina. Considerable
excitement and commotion were caused at all the Courts and
in all the Governments of Europe in consequence of this an-
nouncement ; but the new title was recognised on condition that
Her Majesty should at the same time write a letter, called, in
diplomatic language, a reversal, acknowledging that she thereby
made no difference in the etiquette and precedence of the
European Courts, and would only rank upon terms of equality
with the other crowned heads of Europe. Upon these terms
France, Spain, Austria, and Hungary admitted the Empress of
Russia into their equal society.

For the next twenty years, under Peter III., there were dis-
cussions on the subject ; but he also gave a reversal, disclaiming
superiority to other crowned heads in taking the title of
Emperor. When Catherine II. came to the throne, she objected
to write this reversal, as being inconsistent with the dignity of
a crowned sovereign ; and she herself issued an edict to her
own subjects, announcing, on her accession, her rank, style, and
title ; and distinctly informing her subjects that, though she
took that style and title, she only wished to rank with the
other sovereigns of Europe. I should say that the whole of
the diplomatic proceedings of the world from that time have
acknowledged that result, and there can be no question on the
subject. There was an attempt at the Congress of Vienna to
introduce the subject of the classification of sovereigns ; but the
difficulties of the subject were acknowledged by Prince Metter-
nich, by Lord Castlereagh, and by all the eminent statesmen
of the time ; the subject was dropped ; the equality of crowned

236 SPEECHES OF THE EARL OF BEACOSSFIELD.

heads was again acknowledged, and the mode of precedence of
their representatives at the different Courts was settled by an
alphabetical arrangement, or by the date of their arrival and
letters of credit to that Court at once and for ever. The ques-
tion of equality between those sovereigns who styled themselves
Emperors and those who were crowned heads of ancient king-
doms, without reference to population, revenue, or extent of
territory, was established and permanently adopted.

Now, Sir, the honourable gentleman the member for Glasgow
(Mr. Anderson) said the other day, ' If Empress means nothing
"more than Queen, why should you have Empress ? If it means
something else, then I am against adopting it.' Well, I have
proved to you tnat it does not mean anything else. Then, why
should you adopt it? Well, that is one of those questions
which, if pursued in the same spirit, and applied to all the ele-
ments of society, might resolve it into its original elements.
The amplification of titles is no new system, no new idea ; it has
marked all ages, and has been in accordance with the manners
and customs of all countries. The amplification of titles is
founded upon a great respect for local influences, for the
memory of distinguished deeds, and passages of interest in the
history of countries. It is only by the amplification of titles
that you can often touch and satisfy the imagination of nations ;
and that is an element which Governments must not despise.
Well, then, it is said that if this title of Empress is adopted, it
would be un-English. But why un-English ? I have some-
times heard the ballot called un-English, and indignant orators
on the other side have protested against the use of an epithet
of that character which nobody could define, and which nobody
ought to employ. I should like to know why the title is un-
English. A gentleman the other day, referring to this question
now exciting Parliament and the country, recalled to the recol-
lection of the public the dedication of one of the most beautiful
productions of the English muse to the Sovereign of this
country ; and speaking of the age distinguished by an Elizabeth,
by a Shakespeare, and by a Bacon, he asked whether the use
of the word Empress, applied by one who was second in his
power of expression and in his poetic resources only to Shake-

EOYAL TITLES BILL. 237

speare himself, in the dedication of an immortal work to Queen
Elizabeth was not, at least, an act which proved that the word
and the feeling were not un-English ? Then, of course, it was
immediately answered by those who criticised the illustration
that this was merely the fancy of a poet. But I do not think
it was the fancy of a poet. The fancy of the most fanciful of
poets was exhausted in the exuberant imagination which
idealised his illustrious Sovereign as the ' Faery Queen.' He
did not call her Empress then — he called her the < Faery Queen.'
But when his theme excited the admiration of royalty — when
he had the privilege of reciting some of his cantos to Queen
Elizabeth, and she expressed a wish that the work should be
dedicated to her — then Spenser had, no doubt, to consult the
friends in whom he could confide as to the style in which he
should approach so solemn an occasion, and win to himself still
more the interest of his illustrious Sovereign. He was a man
who lived among courtiers and statesmen. He had as friends
Sidney and Raleigh ; and I have little doubt that it was by the
advice of Sidney and Raleigh that he addressed his Sovereign
as Empress,1 ' The Queen of England, of Ireland, and of Virginia^'
the hand of Sir Walter Raleigh being probably shown in the
title of the Queen of Virginia ; and it is not at all improbable
that Elizabeth herself, who possessed so much literary taste, and
who prided herself upon improving the phrases of the greatest
poet, revised the dedication. That example clearly shows that
the objection of this assumed adoption by Her Majesty of the
title of Empress as un-English could hardly exist in an age
when the word was used with so much honour — in an age of

* words which wise Bacon and brave Raleigh spake.'

I think it is obvious from these remarks, made upon the
assumption that the title which Her Majesty would be pleased
to adopt by her Proclamation would be ' Empress,' that the
title would be one to which there could be no objection.
I am empowered, therefore, to say that the title would be

* Empress,' and that Her Majesty would be 'Victoria, by the
Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and

1 ' To the most mightie and magnificent Empresse, Elizabeth, by the Grace
of God, Queen of England, &c.'

238 SPEECHES OF THE EARL OF BEACOXSFIELD.

Ireland, Queen, Defender of the Faith, and Empress of India.'
Now, I know it may be said — it was said at a recent debate and
urged strongly by the right honourable gentleman the member
for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster)— that this addition to Her
Majesty's style, and in this addition alone, we are treating
without consideration the colonies. I cannot in any way
concur in that opinion. No one honours more than myself the
Colonial Empire of England ; no one is more anxious to main-
tain it. No one regrets more than I do that favourable oppor-
tunities have been lost of identifying the colonies with the royal
race of England. But we have to deal now with another sub-
ject, and one essentially different from the colonial condition.
The condition of India and the condition of the colonies have
no similarity. In the colonies you have, first of all, a fluctuat-
ing population ; a man is member of Parliament, it may be, for
Melbourne this year, and next year he is member of Parliament
for Westminster. A colonist finds a nugget, or he fleeces a
thousand flocks. He makes a fortune. He returns to England,
he buys an estate ; he becomes a magistrate ; he represents
Majesty ; he becomes high sheriff: he has a magnificent
house near Hyde Park ; he goes to Court, to levees, to drawing-
rooms ; he has an opportunity of plighting his troth personally
to his Sovereign : he is in frequent and direct communication
with her. But that is not the case with the inhabitant of India.
The condition of colonial society is of a fluctuating character.
Its political and social elements change. I remember, twenty
years ago, a distinguished statesman (?) who willingly would have
seen a Dukedom of Canada. But Canada has now no separate
existence. It is called the ' Dominion,' and includes several
other provinces. There is no similarity between the circum-
stances of our colonial fellow-subjects in India. Our colonists
are English ; they come, they go, they are careful to make for-
tunes, to invest their money in England ; their interests in this
country are immense, ramified, complicated, and they have
constant opportunities of improving and employing the rela-
tions which exist between themselves and their countrymen in
the metropolis. Their relations to the Sovereign are ample ;
they satisfy them. The colonists are proud of those relations;

KOYAL TITLES BILL. 239

they are interested in the titles of the Queen ; they look forward
to return when they leave England ; they do return ; in short,
they are Englishmen.

Now let me say one word before I move the second reading
of this Bill, upon the effect it may have upon India. It is not
without consideration, it is not without the utmost care, it is
not until after the deepest thought, that we have felt it our
duty to introduce this Bill into Parliament. It is desired in
India ; it is anxiously expected. The princes and nations
of India, unless we are deceived — and we have omitted no
means by which we could obtain information and form opinions
—look to it with the utmost interest. They know exactly what
it means, though there may be some honourable members in
this House who do not. They know in India what this Bill
means, and they know that what it means is what they wish.
I do myself most earnestly impress upon the House to remove
prejudice from their minds and to pass the second reading of
this Bill without a division. Let not our divisions be miscon-
strued. Let the people of India feel that there is a sympathetic
chord between us and them, and do not let Europe suppose for
a moment that there are any in this House who are not deeply
conscious of the importance of our Indian Empire. Unfor-
tunate words have been heard in the debate upon this subject:
but I will not believe that any member of this House seriously
contemplates the loss of our Indian Empire. I trust, therefore,
that the House will give to this Bill a second reading without
a division. By permission of the Queen, I have communicated,
on the part of my colleagues, the intention of Her Majesty,
which she will express in her Proclamation. If you sanction
the passing of this Bill, it will be an act, to my mind, that will
add splendour even to her throne, and security even to her
empire.

& r i Q

240 SPEECHES OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD.

THE AFGHAN WAR. December 10, 1878.

[On December 5, 1878, Parliament was called together to receive
a message from the Queen requesting that provision might be made for
an expeditionary force despatched against the Ameer of Afghanistan.
He had received a Russian envoy, and had declined to admit an
English one. Explanations were demanded and refused, and war was
the result. Lord Grey moved an Amendment to the Address, which
was negatived without a division. But on the following Monday, the
9th, on Lord Cranbrook moving that Parliament do consent to the
application of the Indian Revenue to this purpose, an Amend-
ment embodying a vote of censure was moved by Lord Halifax, and
produced a debate of two nights. The Amendment was defeated by
201 votes to 65 ; and on the second night Lord Beaconsfield wound
up the debate with a speech which extorted the admiration of some
of his most hostile critics,]

>Y LOEDS, — I hope you will think me justified if I ask to
detain you for a few moments. My noble and learned
friend on the woolsack sketched to us, as it were in allegory, a
picture that may give to your lordships an idea of this north-
western boundary that has been the subject of discussion these
two nights. My lords, I think it is advisable that at this
moment some general conception of this scheme should be in
your possession. I would picture it, not in allegory, but such as
it really exists. That boundary, that north-western boundary of
our Indian Empire, is a chain of mountains of the highest
branch ; a branch, indeed, of mountains the highest in the
world, and higher even than the Andes. Yet no portion of
this country is in possession of the inhabitants of the Indian
Empire or Grov eminent, and through its passes invading armies
may make their raids, or wild and turbulent tribes ravage the
fertile plains which are entrusted to your Government in that
part of the world. Well, then, my lords, I ventured to say

THE AFGHAN WAR, DECEMBER 1878. 241

that the inconvenience and the injury of such a boundary were
felt by the Grovernment of India, and had been more than
once the subject of their consideration, and the noble viscount
who moves this amendment expressed upon that subject his
incredulity with respect to my observations. He told us that
he had much acquaintance with the Governors of India, and
that he could not recall any Viceroy who had experienced a
feeling or conviction of that kind.

Well, now, my lords, let us look for a moment to the facts
of the case. We have been in possession of this boundary for,
I believe, twenty-eight years. During that period we have been
obliged to fit out nineteen considerable expeditions to control
its inhabitants, between fifty and sixty guerilla enterprises, and
have employed upon these expeditions between 50,000 and
60,000 of Her Majesty's troops. All I can say is that if none
of the Viceroys of India who are the acquaintances of the noble
lord have felt the inconvenience, or if they have been insensible
to the injury, of such a boundary, they were not fit to be
Viceroys. But I cannot believe that that is the case. My
information would lead me to a very different result. The
government of India is not merely a concern of Viceroys, but
it is a concern of statesmen, both eminent civilians and military
leaders of world-wide renown. And it was the information
which I derived from one of the most eminent individuals of
that character and class that influenced me to make that ob-
servation which I made. That eminent personage was for a
considerable time a member of the Indian administration.
He was not prejudiced in favour of the views adopted by Her
Majesty's Grovernment. For a considerable period, notwith-
standing his sense of the inconvenience and the injury of this
boundary, he was one of those who opposed any change, because
he believed it was better to incur that inconvenience and
injury than to embark on the difficult office of making a fresh
boundary and disturbing arrangements which were necessarily
of a political character. Remembering the possibility of some
Power equal to our own attacking us in that part of the world,
and remembering also that some ten years ago that Power was
2,000 miles distant from our boundaries, a man might con-

VOL. II. R

242 SPEECHES OF THE EAEL OF BEACONSFIELD.

sistently have upheld the arrangement that then existed, and
yet might by the force of circumstances and the lapse of time
be now a sincere supporter of the policy which Her Majesty's
Grovernment now recommends.

That, for instance, is the case of Lord Napier of Magdala.
It was only recently that I received a telegram from him in
which he says, * A careful study of our frontier convinces me
that a rectification of our frontier is necessary.' Those are the
words of one of great experience and of consummate ability and
judgment, who for a long time was opposed to that which he
now finds is absolutely necessary. He does not shrink from
the use of the word ' rectification,' although definitions of that
word have been given by many noble lords opposite which are
not to be found in any dictionary. The noble earl who resumed
the 'debate to-night spoke of rectification as though it were
another phrase for spoliation and annexation. I expected those
cheers and wished to receive them. Another noble earl who
spoke in the debate yesterday — I wrote down his words, because,
unfortunately, on a previous occasion he seemed to accuse me
of misquoting him — said, ' I hate the word " rectification." It
seems to me to savour of the worst traditions of the French
Empire — a word to conceal wrong and robbery.' A noble earl l
described it as a dark word, and he seemed to tremble as he
uttered it. For my own part I cannot agree in any of these
definitions. The rectification of our frontier is a correct diplo-
matic term which is accepted by the highest authorities and
which has a precise and a definite meaning. The rectification
of frontiers, instead of being a word of the French Empire, had
been long adopted, and your lordships will be surprised to find
that the peace of the world very much depends upon those
treaties. If all the treaties for the rectification of frontiers
were destroyed as instruments of the terrible kind described by
noble lords opposite and by the noble earl on the cross benches,
the peace of the world would be endangered, and might be
destroyed.

Well, my lords, after that observation the other night, I

took a note of some treaties for the rectification of frontiers,

1 Earl of Carnarvon.

THE AFGHAN WAR, DECEMBER 1878. 243

and I took them on conditions which I am sure your lordships
will agree are fair. First of all they are all modern — I would
not produce old specimens. Secondly, they are not only
modern treaties, but treaties none of which were entered into
or negotiated after a war. Therefore they are not the con-
sequences of force or fraud. Now, I find that from 1856 to
1868 — quite in our own time — there were five treaties between
France and Spain for the rectification of frontiers, and I have
no hesitation myself in saying that if any of those treaties had
not taken place, there would have been war between France
and Spain, and that the existence of those treaties prevented
war. Between France and Switzerland there was a treaty for
the rectification of frontiers in December 1862 — a treaty of
some celebrity — one which was certainly not a dark instrument.
It was a treaty which certainly has contributed to the main-
tenance of peace. There is a treaty between Great Britain and
France for the rectification of frontiers, and it might surprise
one to find a treaty of that kind between an island and a con-
tinent ; but it had reference to their possessions in the East
Indies. That is a modern treaty. There is a treaty for the
rectification of frontiers between Italy and Switzerland, and one
between Portugal and the Transvaal, of which I believe the
noble earl on the cross benches has some knowledge. To make
it complete, there is a treaty for the rectification of frontiers
between Great Britain and an Oriental kingdom like Afghan-
istan— the kingdom of Siam.

Now, I believe the number of those treaties I have mentioned
— some dozen — might be doubled or even trebled if it were
necessary. The observation of the noble earl l deserves remark.
A rectification of frontiers does not necessarily involve a dimi-
nution of territory. Many such treaties are carried on by an
equivalent. I made no application of those treaties to any case
like Afghanistan. I have not touched upon that point yet.
The noble earl is impetuous. It has been said that I stated
the object of the war to be a rectification of frontier — the sub-
stitution of a scientific for a haphazard frontier. But in the
first place I never said that was the object of the war T

1 Earl Grey.
£ 2

244 SPEECHES OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD .

treated it as a possible consequence of the war, which is a very
different thing. Our application to the Ameer was, in fact,
founded upon the principle of rectifying our frontier without
any disturbance of territory whatever.

What was our difficulty with regard to Afghanistan ? We
could gain no information as to what was going on beyond the
mountain range or what was preparing in the numerous valleys
of Afghanistan. What we wanted, therefore, was eyes to see
and ears to hear, and we should have attained our object had
the Ameer made to us those concessions which are commonly
granted by all civilised States, and which even some Oriental
States do not deny us — namely, to have a minister at his
capital — a demand which we did not press — and men like our
consuls-general at some of his chief towns. That virtually
would have been a rectification of our frontier, because we
should have got rid of those obstacles that rendered it utterly
impossible for us to conduct public affairs with any knowledge
of the circumstances with which we had to deal as regarded
Afghanistan. Therefore, the noble earl is precipitate in con-
cluding, because I am in favour of a rectification of frontier,
that necessarily any change would occur. I only say that
abstractedly there is no absolute necessity for any change,
because you may rectify a frontier in different ways — by equi-
valents and so forth.

But, my lords, my observations on that subject in another
place l were made rather with reference in my mind to certain
wild ideas that were prevalent, to the effect that it was the
intention of the Government to conquer Afghanistan and annex
it to our Empire. I explained that that was not our object, and
that a scientific rectification of our frontier would effect for us
all the results we desired. And, my lords, what is a scientific
frontier compared with a haphazard one ? Why, it is, as a
great military authority has said, this — a scientific frontier can
be defended with a garrison of 5,000 men, while with a hap-
hazard one you may require an army of 100,000 men, and
even then not be safe from sudden attack. It is not for us
now to consider what arrangements may be made with this
1 Speech at Guildhall, Nov. 9, 1878.

THE AFGHAN WAR, DECEMBER 1878. 245

object further than to say that Her Majesty's ministers, after
all that has occurred, will feel it their duty to take care of the
security of the Indian Empire. Whatever may be the objec-
tions to the present north-western frontier of our Indian Em-
pire, I have no doubt things would have gone on in the same
way, members of the Indian administration would have been
equally conscious of the deficiencies of that frontier, and yet so
difficult is the task of amending the frontier, and so great are
the obstacles which certainly present themselves, things would
have gone on, I dare say, as they had gone on for twenty-eight
years, had it not been for the sudden appearance of Eussia in
the immediate vicinity of Afghanistan.

I speak on that subject with frankness. It is, no doubt, much
easier to speak of it now than it would have been a year ago, or
eight months ago. Eight months ago war was more than probable
between this country and Russia, and a word might have pre-
cipitated that war. At present we know from the language of
the gracious Speech from the Throne that Her Majesty's rela-
tions with all Powers are friendly, and they are not less friendly
with Russia than with any other Power. I will say of the
expedition which Russia was preparing in Central Asia at the
time when she believed that war was inevitable between our
country and herself — I will say at once that I hold that all those
preparations on the part of Russia were perfectly allowable ; and
if war had occurred of course they would have contributed to
bring about the ultimate result whatever it might have been.
Had we been in the position of Russia, I doubt not we might
have undertaken some enterprise of a similar kind. No doubt
there were a great many wild expressions uttered by persons of
some authority. No doubt there have been dreams indulged
in by individuals which were never realised. I dare say there
are Russian officers who would not have disliked to cool the
hoofs of their horses in the waters of the 'Indus; on the
other hand, I dare say, there were some English soldiers who
would have liked to catch a glance of the Caspian, and to
have exclaimed tfaXarra, like the soldiers of Xenophon. We
may now dismiss from our considerations all these dreams and
wild expressions, and admit that if war had occurred between the

246 SPEECHES OF THE EAEL OF BEACONSFIELD .

two countries, all the preparations in Central Asia against Great
Britain in India were perfectly justifiable ; but, when it was
found out that war was not to be made, Her Majesty's Govern-
ment made courteous representations to St. Petersburg, and it
was impossible that anything could be more frank and satisfac-
tory than the manner in which they were met. The Emperor of
Kussia said, ' It is very true we did intend to injure you as much
as we could on your Indian border, but war has not occurred.
War, I trust, will not occur between Russia and England. We
have already given orders for the troops to retire to their old
stations beyond the Oxus ; our ambassador shall be merely con-
sidered as a provisional ambassador on a mission of courtesy,
and as soon as possible he shall return.' I think that was suffi-
cient and satisfactory conduct on the part of Russia in regard
to this matter.

But it is totally impossible for us, after all that has oc-
curred, to leave things as they were. After you had found the
Russian armies almost in sight of Afghanistan, and their
embassy within the walls of Cabul, you could not go on with
the old system and indulge in the fancy that your frontier was
a becoming and secure frontier in the circumstances. It was,
therefore, absolutely necessary to consider what course we should
take. The noble earl who spoke last night from the cross bench
made a most ingenious speech, marked by all his characteristics.
I never was more pleased. I listened for a long time to what
seemed a complete vindication of the Government ; and remem-
bering it came from an old comrade in arms with whom I had
worked for a quarter of a century with entire concert, who had
left me unfortunately from circumstances over which he had
no control, I thought he was making the amende by taking an
early opportunity of vindicating the policy of the Government.
But, before sitting down, all that romantic flutter of the heart
which I had experienced entirely ceased when I found that,
notwithstanding his approbation of the Government policy, he
was going to vote for the amendment. What surprised me
more than anything was the reason he gave for it, and that
was because we did not go to war with Russia. The noble
lord said, ' If you acted logically and properly you ought

THE AFGHAN WAE, DECEMBEK 1878. 247

to have gone to war with Russia, and therefore I must vote
for the amendment.' 'You ought not only to have gone
to war with Kussia, but in regard to Afghanistan you ought
to have treated the Ameer with more courtesy and kindness.
You ought to have made appeals to him and taken every step
which might gain his consideration and influence his policy.'
My lords, that is the course which we have pursued. Eeally,
the Ameer of Afghanistan has been treated like a spoiled child.
He has had messages sent to him, he has had messengers
offered to him. He has sent messengers to us who have been
courteously received. We have written him letters, some of
which he has not answered, and others he has answered with
unkindness. What more could we do ? Yet the noble earl is
going to vote against the Government, because with, we think,
an imperfect conception of our conduct, he says we have
behaved harshly to the Ameer, and not taken the proper course
of behaving hostilely to Russia. But, then, remember Russia
has taken every step in this business so as to make honourable
amends to England, and her conduct presents the most striking
contrast to that furnished by the Ameer.

Then there was another point which at this late hour of
the night I cannot dwell upon, but which I will notice, because
it has been treated with great misconception. It refers to the
financial part of the question — to the expenses. My noble
friend on the cross benches has no confidence in our finance.
He recalls the instance of the Abyssinian invasion, and he
says that there was an estimate of 3,000,000£., and it turned
out to be 9,000,000£. My noble friend ought to be well
informed on that subject, because it was at his instance and
by his advice that we made war upon Abyssinia. I believe
better advice was never given ; a more necessary war was never
made ; but when that war took place it unfortunately occurred
very late in the season, and the cabinet were of opinion and
were informed by those who were competent to advise them in
such matters that the affair could not be finished in one cam-
paign. But information reached the Grovernment which con-
vinced them that by great exertions and expense it might
be concluded in one campaign, and we did not hesitate to incur

248 SPEECHES OF THE EAEL OF BEACONSFIELD.

that expense, which amounted to a very large sum, and which
was chiefly spent in obtaining means of transport. But it was
through that expenditure that Lord Napier, in addition to his
great qualities and skill, was enabled to conclude the Abyssinian
War in one campaign. If you had had two campaigns, you
would have spent not 9,000,OOOL, but more. In the second
campaign you might have had a very bad season, instead of the
very fine season that we had ; and you might, instead of savages,
have found European officers who would have assisted them
in resisting their enemy. But, instead of that, Lord Napier
conducted the one campaign to a successful issue without, I
believe, the loss of a single life.

Well, my lords, the question is, What is the course we
ought to take at the present moment ? I was in hopes, after
the debate the other night, in which no one interfered with
those members of your lordships' House whose conduct was
implicated in the various Blue-books on the table, that we
might have discussed the political character of the question
much more fully than we have done, and that we should not
be again lost in a series of what I must call wrangles about
the conduct of ministers who are in office and who are out.
If the noble viscount who has just sat down is satisfied with
the triumphant speech of the late Viceroy of India, as he
describes it, I can only say that it is not a speech which will
give to the people of England that knowledge which is desir-
able, and which they wish to have, of the great question at
issue. If I am to sum up the three nights' debate which we
virtually have had upon this matter, I should say it must be
summed up in a sentence, so far as the discussions have gone.
We have done something which in theory you approve, and
which, if England had acted in time, you would have done your-
selves. In a despatch of the noble Viceroy who addressed us
at such length this evening your lordships will find this state-
ment. His Government is alarmed by an account that the
Eussians are going to occupy Merv, and what is proposed is
this : He proposes that we should make — I do not know that it
was not to be an offensive and defensive alliance, but certainly
a defensive alliance with Afghanistan, and that English officers

THE AFGHAN WAE, DECEMBEE 1878. 249

should be immediately admitted to Herat. What is the differ-
ence

Lord Northbrook : I never made any such proposal.

The Earl of Beaconsfield : I am sorry that the noble lord is
in the habit of contradicting without appealing to documents.
I can give the date to the noble lord. He will find it in June,
1875. The despatch says, ' Much discussion has recently taken
place as to the effect that would be produced by a Russian
advance to Merv. We have before stated to Her Majesty's
Government our apprehension that the assumption by Russia
of authority over the whole Turcoman country would create
alarm in Afghanistan, and we think it desirable to express our
opinion of the course which should be adopted if it should
take place.' Here it is : ' It would then become necessary to
give additional and more specific assurances to the ruler of
Afghanistan that we are prepared to assist him to defend
Afghanistan against attack from without.' * It would probably
be desirable to enter into a treaty engagement with him,' — not
merely an assurance, but * a treaty engagement with him ; and
the establishment of a British resident in Herat would be the
natural consequence of such an engagement and of the nearer
approach of the Russian frontier.' I appeal to your lordships
whether this quotation does not entirely substantiate my state-
ment as to the policy of the noble earl, and whether my sum-
mary comparison between the policy of the late Viceroy and our
own is not correct. I have no objection at any time to be
interrupted, and the only reason why I regret it now is that it
will add to the few moments during which I shall have to
trouble you.

I received yesterday a communication from Lord Napier of
Magdala, who could not arrive in time to take part in this de-
bate. He says, < Afghanistan, if in the hands of a hostile Power,
may at any time deal a fatal blow to our Empire. We .cannot
remain on the defensive without a ruinous drain on our re-
sources. Our frontier is weak ; an advanced position is neces-
sary for our safety.' When I am told that no military authority
justifies Her Majesty's Government, I can appeal with confidence
to one who, I believe, must rank among the very highest

250 SPEECHES OF THE EAKL OF BEACONSFIELD.

military authorities. I will not detain your lordships, because it
is impossible, in your exhausted state, having met at an extra-
ordinarily early hour to-day, to enter into any great discussion.
What I want to impress on your lordships before you divide —
which you will do in a very few minutes — is that you should not
misapprehend the issue on which you have to decide. It is a
very grave one. It is not a question of the Khyber Pass merely
and of some small cantonments at Dakka or at Jellalabad. It
is a question which concerns the character and the influence of
England in Europe. And your conduct to-day will animate
this country and encourage Europe, if it be such as I would
fain believe you are determined to accomplish.

My lords, I object entirely to this amendment of the noble
lord. It is an absurd position almost in which to put the House
of Lords to come down and appeal to them to stop the supplies
to Her Majesty. If the amendment is substituted for our
original motion, that would be the inevitable result. I cannot
believe that many noble lords opposite, when they accurately
understand the issue which is before them, can sanction such a
course. They can scarcely have been conscious of the dangerous
precipice to which the noble viscount, the mover of the amend-
ment, was leading them. We have seen in this debate an
indignant spirit hostile to these tactics evinced by some of the
most eminent members of the party. The speech of the noble
duke,1 which was hailed from both sides of the House, was one
which expressed the sentiments which I am sure the great
majority must feel. What I see in the amendment is not an
assertion of great principles, which no man honours more than
myself. What is at the bottom of it is rather that principle of
peace at any price which a certain party in this country upholds.
It is that dangerous dogma which I believe animates the ranks
before me at this moment, although many of them may be uncon-
scious of it. That deleterious doctrine haunts the people of this
country in every form. Sometimes it is a committee ; sometimes
it is a letter ; sometimes it is an amendment to the Address ;
sometimes it is a proposition to stop the supplies. That doctrine
has done more mischief than any I can well recall that have
1 The Duke of Somerset.

THE AFGHAN WAR, DECEMBEK 1878. 251

been afloat in this century. It has occasioned more wars than
the most ruthless conquerors. It has disturbed and nearly
destroyed that political equilibrium so necessary to the liberties
of nations and the welfare of the world. It has dimmed occa-
sionally for a moment even the majesty of England. And, my
lords, to-night you have an opportunity, which I trust you will
not lose, of branding these opinions, these deleterious dogmas,
with the reprobation of the Peers of England.

252 SPEECHES OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD.

WAR IN SOUTH AFRICA. March 26, 1879.

[The following speech was delivered on the occasion of a Reso-
lution proposed by the Marquis of Lansdown to the effect ' That
this House, while willing to support Her Majesty's Government in
all necessary measures for defending the possessions of Her Majesty in
South Africa, regrets that the ultimatum, which was calculated to
produce immediate war, should have been presented to the Zulu King
without authority from the responsible advisers of the Crown, and
that an offensive war should have been commenced without imperative
and pressing necessity or adequate preparation ; and the Hotise regrets
that, after the censure passed upon the High Commissioner by Her
Majesty's Government in the despatch of March 19, 1879, the conduct
of affairs in South Africa should be retained in his hands.' The
motion was negatived by a majority of 95 — the ' contents ' being 61,
the 'non-contents' 156.]

TIHE EAEL OF BEACONSFIELD,— I generally find there
is one advantage at the end of a debate besides the
relief which is afforded by its termination, and that is that both
sides of the House seem pretty well agreed as to the particular
point that really is at issue ; but the rich humour of the noble
duke l has again diverted us from the consideration of the motion
really before the House. If the noble duke and his friends
were desirous of knowing what was the policy which Her
Majesty's Government were prepared generally to pursue in
South Africa, if they were prepared to challenge the policy of
Sir Bartle Frere in all its details, I should have thought they
would have produced a very different motion from that which
is now lying on your lordships' table ; for that is a motion of
a most limited character, and, according to the strict rules of
parliamentary discussion, precludes you from most of the sub-
jects which have lately been introduced to our consideration,
and which principally have emanated from noble lords oppo-
1 The Duke of Somerset.

WAE IN SOUTH AFRICA, MARCH 1879. 253

site. We have not been summoned here to-day to consider
the policy of the acquisition of the Transvaal. These are sub-
jects on which I am sure the Government would be prepared
to address your lordships if their conduct were clearly and fairly
impugned. And with regard to the annexation of the province,
which has certainly very much filled the mouths of men of late,
I can easily conceive that that would have been a subject for
fair discussion in this House, and we should have heard, as we
have heard to-night, though in a manner somewhat unexpected,
from the nature of the resolution before us, from the noble lord
who was recently the Secretary of State for the Colonies, the
principal reasons which induced the Government to sanction
that policy — a policy which I believe can be defended, but
which has not been impugned to-night in any formal manner.

What has been impugned to-night is the conduct of the
Government in sanctioning, not the policy of Sir Bartle Frere,
but his taking a most important step without consulting them,
which on such a subject is the usual practice with all Govern-
ments. But the noble lord opposite who introduced the sub-
ject does not even impugn the policy of the Lord High Com-
missioner, and it was left for the noble duke who has just
addressed us, and who ought to have brought forward this
question if his views are so strongly entertained by him on the
matter, not in supporting a resolution such as now lies on your
lordships' table, but one which would have involved a discussion
of the policy of the Government and that of the high officer
who is particularly interested in it.

My noble friend the noble marquis l who very recently
addressed the House touched the real question which is before
us, and it is a very important question, although it is not of
the expansive character of the one which would have been jus-
tified by the comments of noble lords opposite. What we have
to decide to-night is this — whether Her Majesty's Government
shall have the power of recommending to the Sovereign the
employment of a high officer to fulfil duties of the utmost
importance, or whether that exercise of the prerogative on
their advice shall be successfully impugned and that appoint-
1 Lord Salisbury.

254 SPEECHES OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD.

ment superseded by noble lords opposite. That course is
perfectly constitutional if they are prepared to take the con-
sequences. But let it be understood what the issue is. It is
this, — that a censure upon the Government is called for because
they have selected the individual who on the whole they think
is the best qualified successfully to fulfil the duties of High
Commissioner. The noble lords opposite make that proposition ;
and if they succeed they will succeed in that which has hitherto
been considered one of the most difficult tasks of the Executive
Government — that is to say, they will supersede the individual
whom the Sovereign, in the exercise of her prerogative, under
the advice of her ministers, has selected for an important post.
I cannot agree in the general remark made by the noble duke
that because an individual has committed an error, and even a
considerable error, for that reason, without any reference either
to his past, services or his present qualifications, immediately a
change should be recommended and he should be recalled from
the scene of his duties.

I remember myself a case not altogether different from the
present one. It happened some years ago when I sat in the
other House. Then a very high official — a diplomatist of great
eminence —a member of the Liberal party — had committed
what was deemed a great indiscretion, and was deemed a great
indiscretion by several members of his own party; and the
Government were asked in a formal manner by a Liberal
member whether that distinguished diplomatist had been in
consequence recalled. But the person who was then responsible
for the conduct of public affairs in that House — the humble
individual who is now addressing your lordships — made this
answer with the full concurrence of his colleagues — denied that
that distinguished diplomatist was recalled, and said that great
services are not cancelled by one act or one single error,
however it may be regretted, at the moment. That is what I
said then with regard to Sir James Hudson,1 and what I say now
with regard to Sir Bartle Frere. But I do not wish to rest on
that. I confess that, so keen is my sense of responsibility and

1 Sir James Hudson was minister at Turin from 1852 to 1863, and was
thought to have expressed himself indiscreetly on the question of Italian
nationality.

WAK IN SOUTH AFKICA, MAUCH 1879. 255

that of my colleagues, and I am sure also that of noble lords
opposite, that we would not allow our decisions in such matters
to be unduly influenced by personal considerations of any kind.
What we had to determine is this, Was it wise that such an
act on the part of Sir Bartle Frere as, in fact, commencing war
without consulting the Government at home, and without their
sanction, should be passed unnoticed ? Ought it not to be
noticed in a manner which should convey to that eminent
person a clear conviction of the feelings of Her Majesty's
Government ; and at the same time was it not their duty to
consider, were he superseded, whether they could place in his
position an individual equally qualified to fulfil the great duties
and responsibility resting on him ? That is what we had to
consider. We considered it entirely with reference to the public
interest, and the public interest alone, and we arrived at a con-
viction that on the whole the retention of Sir Bartle Frere in that
position was our duty, notwithstanding the inconvenient observa-
tions and criticisms to which we were, of course, conscious it
might subject us ; and, that being our conviction, we have acted
upon it.

It is a very easy thing for a Government to make a scape-
goat; but that is conduct which I hope no gentleman on
this side, and I believe no gentleman sitting opposite, would
easily adopt. If Sir Bartle Frere had been recalled — if he had
been recalled in deference to the panic, the thoughtless panic,
of the hour, in deference to those who have no responsibility in
the matter, and who have not weighed well and deeply investi-
gated all the circumstances and all the arguments which can
be brought forward, and which must be appealed to to influence
our opinions on such questions — no doubt a certain degree of
odium might have been diverted from the heads of Her
Majesty's ministers, and the world would have been delighted,
as it always is, to find a victim. That was not the course which
we pursued, and it is one which I trust no British Government
ever will pursue. We had but one object in view, and that was
to take care that at this most critical period the affairs of Her
Majesty in South Africa should be directed by one not only
qualified to direct them, but who was superior to any other

256 SPEECHES OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD.

individual whom we could have selected for that purpose. The
sole question that we really have to decide to-night is — Was
it the duty of Her Majesty's Government to recall Sir Bartle
Frere in consequence of his having declared war without our
consent ? We did not think it our duty to take that course,
and we do not think it our duty to take that course now.
Whether we are right in the determination at which we have
arrived is the sole question which the House has to determine
upon the motion before it.

The noble duke opposite * has told us that he should not
be contented without being made acquainted with the whole
policy which Her Majesty's Government are prepared to pursue
in South Africa. If the noble duke will introduce that subject
we shall be happy to discuss it with him. No one could in-
troduce it in a more interesting, and, indeed, in a more enter-
taining manner than the noble duke, who possesses that
sarcastic facility that so well qualifies him to express his
opinion on such a matter. I think, however, that we ought
to have had rather longer notice before we were called upon to
discuss so large a theme which has now been brought suddenly
before us. If the noble marquis who introduced this subject
had given us notice of a motion of this character we should not
have hesitated for a moment to meet it. I have, however, no
desire to avoid discussing the subject of our future policy in
South Africa, even on so general a notice as we have received
in reference to it from the noble duke. Sir Bartle Frere was
selected by the noble lord 2 who formerly occupied the position
of Secretary for the Colonies chiefly to secure one great end —
namely, to carry out that policy of confederation in South
Africa which the noble lord had successfully carried out on a
previous occasion with regard to the North American Colonies.

If there is any policy which in my mind is opposed to the
policy of annexation it is that of confederation. By pursuing
the policy of confederation we bind States together, we consoli-
date their resources, and we enable them to establish a strong
frontier, and where we have a strong frontier that is the best
security against annexation. I myself regard a policy of annex-
1 The Duke of Somerset. 2 Lord Carnarvon.

WAE IN SOUTH AFEICA, MARCH 1879. 257

ation with great distrust. I believe that the reasons of State
which induced us to annex the Transvaal were not, on the
whole, perfectly sound. But what were the circumstances under
which that annexation was effected. The Transvaal was a
territory which was no longer defended by its occupiers. The
noble lord opposite,1 who formerly had the colonies under his
management, spoke of the conduct of Sir Theophilus Shepstone
as though he had not taken due precautions to effect the
annexation of that province, and said that he was not justified
in concealing that he had not successfully consummated his
object. The noble lord said that he had not assembled troops
enough in the province to carry out properly the policy of
annexation. But Sir Theophilus Shepstone particularly refers
to the very fact to show that so unanimous and so united was
the sentiment in the province in favour of annexation that it
was unnecessary to send any large force there to bring it about.
The annexation of that province was a necessity — a geographical
necessity.

But the annexation of the Transvaal was one of the reasons
why those who were connected with that province might have
calculated upon the permanent existence of Zululand as an
independent State. I know it is said that when we are at
war, as we unfortunately now are, with the Zulus or any other
savage nation, even though we inflicted upon them some great
disaster and might effect an arrangement with them of a
peaceable character, before long the same Power would again
attack us unless we annexed the territory. I have never con-
sidered that a legitimate argument in favour of annexation of
a barbarous country. It is very true that if we defeated the
Zulus to-morrow, as I trust that we shall shortly in a very signifi-
cant manner, in a few years another war may break out between
ourselves and them. But similar results might occur in Europe
if we went to war with one of our neighbours, as we unfor-
tunately have done on previous occasions ; and even if we
defeated our neighbours, when their resources revived, when
their population increased, and when they had improved their
arms of precision, it would be very likely that they might

1 Lord Kimberley.
VOL. II. S

258 SPEECHES OF THE EAKL OF BEACONSFIELD.

seize a favourable opportunity to go to war with us again. But
is that an argument why we should not hold our hand until we
have completely crushed our adversary, and is that any reason
why we should pursue a policy of extermination with regard to
a barbarous nation with whom we happen to be at war ? That
is a policy which I hope will never be sanctioned by this
House.

It is, of course, possible that we may again be involved in
war with the Zulus, but it is an equal chance that in the deve-
lopment of circumstances in that part of the world the Zulu
people may have to invoke the aid and the alliance of England,
against some other people, and that the policy dictated by
feelings and influences which have regulated our conduct with
regard to European States may be successfully pursued with
regard to less civilised nations in a different part of the world
This is the policy of Her Majesty's Government, and there-
fore they cannot be in favour of a policy of annexation, be-
cause it is directly opposed to it. I will not enter into any
minute discussion of the various questions which by means
of their association with the main question have been im-
ported into the debate. They have really nothing to do with
the single issue that is now before your lordships, and upon
which in a very short time you will record your opinion. It is-
not the policy of England with regard to South Africa now
for some years past that is called in question. Different-
cabinets and different schools of political opinion are equally
interested in maintaining that policy. It is not, in fact, the
annexation of the Transvaal province upon which you are now
called to decide. It is not, in fact, any of the matters that
have been treated in detail to-night, but which really do not
branch out of the resolution which is on the table, and to which
if their correctness is questioned the noble lord will have a
legitimate opportunity of calling your lordships' attention.

The question we have before us now is whether Her Majesty's
ministers have acted with policy in retaining the services of
Sir Bartle Frere in the circumstances in which they have been
retained. On the part of the Government, I give my opinion
here publicly that in taking that course we took one for the

WAR IN SOUTH AFEICA, MARCH 1879.

259

public welfare ; that we were influenced by no personal con-
siderations ; that we were influenced by none of those feelings
which it is difficult for even honourable men when they find
a distinguished public officer in difficulty or disgrace to be free
from ; that we divested ourselves from any other sentiment
but doing that which in a most difficult state of affairs was for
the public advantage. And if you wish the public advantage
to be first considered, and not the triumph of a party, you will
to-night give your decided negative to the motion of the noble
marquis.

s2

260 SPEECHES OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD.

EVACUATION OF CANDAHAR. March 4, 1881.

[One of the first acts of the new Government which acceded to
power in April 1880 was to make preparations for relinquishing the
positions in Afghanistan which we had acquired by the war of 1879.
It was still hoped, however, that they meant to retain Candahar, a
fortress commanding the only route by which an invading army
could approach India. When it was found that this was not the
case, and that Candahar, too, was to be abandoned, Lord Lytton, on
March 3, brought forward a motion in the House of Lords to the
effect that there was nothing in the information laid before their
lordships to justify the abandonment of Candahar. After two nights'
debate the Resolution was carried by a majority of 89, the ' contents '
being 165, the ' non-contents ' 76. The speeches of Lord Lytton and
the Marquis of Salisbury, taken together with Lord Beaconsfield's, com-
plete the case of the Opposition. It was to this speech that Lord
Granville referred in his graceful tribute to the memory of Lord
Beaconsfield when he said he had seen him swallow drugs to allay
the pain from which he suffered in order that he might be able to
place his views before their lordships' House.]

THE question really before your lordships is whether it is or
is not wise to evacuate Candahar, and I shall endeavour to
•confine my observations strictly to that subject, or at least with
one exception of a very slight character. I see no use in review-
ing again the history of the Afghan war or of the proceedings
which preceded it. Your lordships, having been appealed to
on that subject, have given your opinion in great numbers and
after long and deep discussion. It would, therefore, in my
opinion be unnecessary for me now to enter upon a considera-
tion of that matter in detail. There are one or two salient
facts to guide us in coming to a conclusion on this matter, and
which it occurs to me to allude to at this moment, owing to
the tone which the debate has taken. It is on record that the
Ameer of Afghanistan appealed for succour some years ago to

EVACUATION OF CANDAHAR, MARCH 1881. 261

the Viceroy of the Queen in India, who is now First Lord of
the Admiralty, and the Viceroy thought it his duty to reject
the overtures made to him. It also stands upon record that
this rejection was the origin of all the misunderstandings and
misfortunes which have since occurred. It also stands upon
record that about three years afterwards, panic-stricken, I
suppose, by the rumour that the Kussians were approaching
Merv, the then Viceroy decided on the plan which, in his
opinion, should be then adopted to meet the difficulties and
dangers of such a proceeding, and he proposed an offensive and
defensive treaty in Afghanistan, and the establishment of a
resident minister on the British side of Herat. These are great
salient truths, and I must say that I am quite sui-prised,
remembering these historical facts, at the tone which the noble
lord the First Lord of the Admiralty took with reference to my
noble friend the late Viceroy of India. One would suppose
that the noble earl was not only a pupil of the peace at any
price school, but that he was also graduating for higher
honours in the more refined school which would wage war and
at the same time negotiate, more especially if our arms had
been defeated. I was very much disappointed, my lords, at
the reply the noble duke the Lord Privy Seal made to my
noble friend near me. I had listened, as a very full House had
listened, with pleasure to that speech, and a speech more
exhaustive, more animated, more completely touching everv
point of the subject I have rarely heard. Well, I knew that
my noble friend was to be followed by one whose ability was
equal to any emergency — one who is an ornament of this
House, and invariably delights the audience which he addresses.
Well, my lords, what did we hear ? Was there any answer to
the speech of my noble friend ? On the contrary, we had a
series of biographies of Indian worthies, and when the list
closed it was, as usual, flung at the head of my noble friend the
late Viceroy. Under these circumstances I think we have
had enough of recurrence to the past, and that we may confine
our consideration to the point before us.

My lords, there is one point only, before I touch upon the
question of Candahar, on which I would like to make one or

262 SPEECHES OF THE EAKL OF BEACONSFIELD.

two remarks, and that is about our relations with Russia, which
have formed so important a portion of our discussion to-night
as on previous occasions. Now, my lords, when my noble
friend and myself were commissioned to proceed as plenipoten-
tiaries to Berlin nearly three years ago, our instructions were
to achieve, if possible, two great objects. One, of course, to
secure and guard the interests of our own country, and the
other to combine with the other Powers if possible for some
general arrangement or some unity of feeling which might
secure, if not the perpetual, at least the lasting, peace of Europe.
Well, my lords, when we came to consider our interests in this
subject it was quite obvious that it was quite impossible to
arrive at any arrangement which would give a fair probability
of a lasting European peace if there was not sympathy on the
part of Eussia, and the time seemed to have arrived, when a
Congress was called upon to settle the affairs of Europe, to
make some efforts to come, if possible, to some direct under-
standing with Russia which might tend to the beneficial results
we had in view.

I must say that before we could take any steps we were
anticipated by the illustrious Chancellor of that Empire, who
expressed a desire on the part of Russia that some attempt
should be made to put an end to that chronic misunderstanding
which seemed always to be recurring between the two countries
of Great Britain and Russia. I do not, my lords, mean to say
that there was at any time an intention of an alliance or a
treaty, or a convention, but what we all seemed to desire was
that, if possible, instead of hostile distrust, there should be, at
least, some approximation to confidence, and that when any
occurrences of a controversial character took place in those
parts of the world where the interests of Russia and Englanc
clashed, there should be, at least, a friendly and candid com-
munication of views between the two Powers which might
remove causes which were not at all adequate reasons for mis
understanding. Well, my lords, when we returned to Englan(
I think I expressed the sentiments which my noble colleague
would have expressed on this matter. I took the earliest
opportunity of declaring in this House that those circumstances

EVACUATION OF CANDAHAE, MAECH 1881. 263

which had occurred in Central Asia with reference to efforts of
Kussia the avowed object of which was to embarrass and disturb
English interests in that part of the world — I say I took the
earliest opportunity of announcing in this House that, so far as
those preparations had been made by Eussia with the belief
that war was immediately pending between the two countries,
we found that we had no cause to complain, and that we were
willing to forget and wished to forget all that had occurred in
that respect.1 And in consequence a formal communication of
our views, which I do not doubt will be found in the annals of
the Foreign Office, was made on the subject, and we received,
as I stated at the time, an answer from St. Petersburg of the
most satisfactory kind — in fact, expressing all those views and
sentiments which Prince Grortchakoff, the Chancellor of the
Empire, had expressed at the Congress.

Your lordships are aware that within a short time there has
been laid upon your table a correspondence,2 which has been
described as a sinister correspondence, and which has for so
long a time been the subject of interest, I would say of
suppressed interest, in many political circles. Your lordships
may remark that at the end of that correspondence the present
Kussian ambassador alludes in a summary to a despatch of
Count Schouvaloff, in which there is a long quotation or
summary of what I had expressed to Count Schouvaloff in a
conversation. I am sure, my lords, that nobody who took up
those papers would believe that it was a publication which had
been for a long time suppressed even at Cabul, with an account
of the Kussian ambassador's interview with me, entirely con-
doning the past and approving everything that Russia had
done. They could see no reason for the publication of that

1 Vide supra.

2 Correspondence between Shere All and the Foreign Minister on one side,
and Generals Kaufman and Stolietoff on the other, which was found at Cabul
by General Roberts in the autumn of 1879, disclosing the existence of a secret
treaty between the Ameer and Russia, most hostile to the interests of this
country, and signed after the conclusion of the Treaty of Berlin. Letters
written to the Ameer by these Russian agents directly instigating them to
attack us and to excite a general Mahomedan rising against our power in
India, formed part of the collection, and constituted a complete justification of
our invasion of Afghanistan in November 1878.

264 SPEECHES OF THE EAKL OF BEACONSFIELD.

despatch. But, my lords, if you look at the date of the
despatch you will find that it was in November, 1878, whereas
the despatches between the Kussian authorities and the Ameer
which were discovered after the second capture of Cabul were
not obtained by the British Government until exactly a year
afterwards — namely, October or November, 1879. And therefore
it does appear to me most extraordinary that while the despatch
of Count Schouvaloff giving an account of his interview with
me, condoning the conduct of the Kussian Government under
certain conditions and circumstances which are almost verbatim
what I did express in this House about a month before — that
anyone could think there was any connection between those
despatches so found a year afterwards at Cabul and that con--
versation.

Your lordships may also remark that in this curious pub-
lication there is in inverted commas what purports to be an
announcement on my part that in my opinion the Government
of India had forced our hands upon the subject of war, and had
occasioned a declaration of war not only before it was necessary,
but when it was, perhaps, altogether unnecessary. The case
was exactly the opposite of that. Instead of Her Majesty's
Government complaining of being forced by the Government
of India to make war, that Government was most anxious to •
avoid war. We were appealed to by the Government of India
to know what was our decision, as it fell upon them to make
preparations for war, if war were decided upon ; and when the
affair came so near that the Government of India asked for its
final instructions, it pledged itself voluntarily to make na
single military operation without our sanction and advice. The
English Government, as appears by the papers, were anxious to
give Shere Ali a locus penitentice, and instructed the Govern-
ment of India to concede to him a period of three weeks to
consider what he would do. We calculated every day, and
considered the full time that would not interfere with military
operations if they became necessary. My lords, I am quite
certain that Count Schouvaloff was utterly incapable of mis-
representation as to anything I expressed to him. He was
well known to every member of this House, a great ornament

EVACUATION OF CANDAHAR, MARCH 1881. 265

of society, a most honourable man, and I supposed at the time
that it must have been a misapprehension of the ambassador^
But I understand it referred, not to our hand being forced by
the Government of India to go to war — that was absolutely
absurd — but to the mission which two months before had been
sent by the Indian Government, with the sanction of the
English Government. Your lordships are well aware of the
failure of that expedition; but the expedition was not an
operation of war but a mission of peace, and we sent an indivi-
dual who was the friend of Shere Ali, and who we believed
would have succeeded in accomplishing a great object. It was
absolutely necessary that I should call your lordships' attention
to the fact that the alleged conversation with Count Schouva-
loff appended to the papers discovered at Cabul took place in
fact one year before they were discovered, and consequently
that the expressions which excited my pain and surprise really
referred to other subjects. I propose now to notice a remark
as to why when these papers were discovered at Cabul they
were not published by the late Government.

Certainly it would not have been in harmony with the ex-
istence of good feeling between the English plenipotentiaries
and Prince Gortchakoff, if we took at the earliest opportunity a
step which would not have tended to the cultivation of that
friendly feeling between the two countries which was our object.
Then we are asked why we consented to that publication. I
am not the person who has consented to the publication, but the
minister. I always took it for granted, from the extraordinary
proceedings with regard to Afghanistan during the general elec-
tion, that sooner or later there must have been a discussion on
the subject. It was when in the frenzy of the hustings the
country was enlightened on the subject of the war in Afghan-
istan, and when it was denounced by the late ministry as un-
necessary and a great damage to the country — it was not until
these expressions were used that we found that some steps should
be taken on our part also to enlighten the country. Who could
have supposed that our successors, with the Cabul papers, not
published, but in their possession to guide them, should have
announced in the manner they did that the whole of our policy

266 SPEECHES OF THE EAEL OF BEACONSFIELD.

in Afghanistain should be repudiated ? Our whole policy in
Afghanistan is described as a monstrous romance, as if there
had been no occasion for a single incident that occurred. Our
recollection of the previous connection of the First Lord of
the Admiralty (Lord Northbrook) with the Ameer, seemed to
be entirely effaced from the memory of the nation. And,
therefore, when my noble friend, the late Viceroy, found him-
self held up in so distorted a form to his country, it is not
surprising that as a member of this House he should have
taken an opportunity of calling your lordships' attention to the
subject of these despatches.

Now, I would ask the Lord Privy Seal why he did not
answer the two most important questions asked in this debate —
they were asked by the noble viscount behind him. The first
is, What do the Grovernment mean to do with Candaharwhen they
evacuate it in a month hence ? The next question is, why we
are not favoured with the opinion of Lord Ripon and his coun-
cillors ? These are two questions which we have certainly a right
to have answered. My noble friend (Lord Derby), who made
a very animated speech — and I do not know there is anything
that would excite enthusiasm in him except when he contem-
plates the surrender of some national possession — made a dis-
tinct point on that subject. He asked why we made such a great
point of retaining Candahar at present, when we were willing when
we made the Treaty of Grandamak to restore it to the native
prince. The answer is clear. When we negotiated the Treaty
of Grandamak our policy was to create a powerful and indepen-
dent Afghanistan, and therefore everybody must feel that an
attempt to retain Candahar must baffle and defeat that policy.

My lords, you have an old policy with regard to the relations
of this country, India, and Afghanistan, which has been approved
by all public men. Lord Lawrence, whom we always speak of
with great respect, though the Lord Privy Seal says we syste-
matically insulted him, was most decided in his policy that
there should be an English interest in Afghanistan, and that
Russian influence in it should not for a moment be tolerated.
Well, what is your policy now ? Where will English interests
be when you have evacuated Afghanistan ? What will be the

EVACUATION OF CANDAHAR, MARCH 1881. 267

state of Afghanistan ? It will be a state of anarchy. We
have always announced, as a reason for interfering in Afghan-
istan, that we cannot tolerate a state of anarchy on our frontiers.
Is not that an argument as good for Kussia as for us ? Will not
the Kussians say, * Afghanistan is in a state of anarchy, and we
cannot go on civilising Turkestan when Afghanistan is in a state
of anarchy ? ' Therefore you are furnishing Eussia with an occa-
sion for advancing. When I speak of this policy of Russia, I
do not speak of it in a hostile spirit. Russia has a right to its
policy as well as England. Russia has as good a right to
create an empire in Tartary, as we have in India. She must
take the consequences if the creation of her empire en-
dangers our power. I see nothing in that feeling on the part
of England which should occasion any want of friendliness
between this country and Russia. We must guard against
what must be looked upon as the inevitable designs of a very
great Power. When Lord Palmerston carried one of the
greatest measures of his life — the fortification of the Channel,
which was of much more importance than the retaining- of
Candahar — was that looked upon as a symbol of hostility to the
French people ? Everyone knows that Lord Palmerston was
very friendly to the French alliance, and yet that was an
operation directed immediately against France for the purpose
of putting an end to the continual fluctuations of bluster and
fear which such a situation as England was in at that time must
necessarily entail.

I come now to the question of finance. I will not discuss
whether Sir Henry Norman's helter-skelter estimates or those
of other persons are the best or worst ; but I will remind your
lordships of this, that everything that has been alleged re-
specting the retention of Candahar and the consequent expense
was said about the retention of the Punjaub. We heard when
the retention of the Punjaub was proposed that it was impos-
sible to raise any respectable revenue there ; that the country
was bare ; that the population, compared with India, was sparse ;
and that it was quite impossible that the expenditure of our
Government could be repaid. All these arguments were urged
against annexation of any kind. But eventually you found a

268 SPEECHES OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD.

very prosperous country in the Punjaub and Scinde, which
proved a source of wealth and strength to India. I will not
believe without much better proof that the retaining Candahar —
the capital of an extremely fertile district — will entail upon you
a result less satisfactory than the result of the retention of the
Punjaub and Scinde. The prima facie evidence is, I think, in
favour of a rich district paying its expenses, and, in time, probably
paying more than its expenses.

There is another point connected with Candahar of which
much has been made in this debate and on other occasions. It
is said that we are debarred from annexing or retaining Can-
dahar by our public declarations and agreements, and in the
front of these is always placed the celebrated proclamation of
the Queen when she accepted the sovereignty of India. I
can speak with some confidence upon that subject, for, to a
certain extent, I am responsible for that proclamation. It
never entered into my head that there was anything in that
proclamation which should prevent the Queen, if she went to
war with a foreign Power, making such terms at the conclusion of
peace as she might think fit, and availing herself of her power
to take any provinces by right of conquest. The proclamation
is essentially a domestic proclamation addressed to the princes of
India, and the obligation of that proclamation has been most
rigidly observed. There is no instance in which Her Majesty
has been counselled to deviate from it, and I must repudiate
the attempt to treat the Queen's proclamation on her assump-
tion of the full sovereignty of India as a bar to the retention of
Candahar if the Government should deem that retention wise
and prudent. As to the observation that the commanding
officers announced to the people that they were making war
against princes only and not upon subjects, it may be easily
disposed of. Such an announcement is an Oriental custonu
In all the wars that have taken place of late — certainly in some
of them — similar assurances have been given by the invading
Power, but it has not prevented rich countries losing their
capitals, and ancient empires being dislocated. In fact, you
can generally drive a coach-and-six through declarations of that
kind.

EVACUATION OF CANDAHAR, MARCH 1881'. 269

I have now touched upon the principal points in this ques-
tion of the retention of Candahar. I confess that I have not
heard an answer to the speeches of my noble friend who intro-
duced this subject to your notice, of the noble marquis (Lord
Salisbury), and of the noble viscount who addressed your lord-
ships first this evening. It will not be unreasonable if I repeat
a few points on which we lay particular stress. We want to
know why we are not favoured with the views of Lord Kipon
and his council, and what scheme the Grovernment have in
view if they evacuate Candahar in the short space of time
announced — namely, in less than a month. Noble lords oppo-
site cheered the noble lord who addressed us from those
benches with so much power, and who seemed to admit that he
would be satisfied if Candahar were to be retained for a certain
period of time. Well, there is nothing unusual in retaining
possession of a considerable town or province until the country,
after great disquietude, war, and revolution, has subsided into
comparative tranquillity. That is not an Oriental practice. It has
been practised in some countries in Europe. There have been
such things as military occupations before the present time. If
the Grovernment had come forward and announced that they
intended to give up almost everything that we had obtained,
but that in the present state of Afghanistan they did not see
their way to leave Candahar, though they did not think fit to
appropriate it absolutely, I should still have regretted their not
annexing Candahar, but I should have felt that they were
making a reasonable and statesmanlike suggestion, which should
be received with attention. Such a course would have received
the respectful consideration of this House. I think that it
becomes the House of Lords to express its opinion upon this
subject. I had myself believed that even if we abandoned
Candahar we should still be able to retain our Indian Empire.
I do not think that it is absolutely essential to us. There are
several places which are called the keys of India. There is
Merv. I do not know whether that place has yet been taken
by the Eussians. Perhaps the First Lord of the Admiralty will
be able to imform us.

The Earl of Northbrook : It is not a seaport.

270 SPEECHES OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD.

The Earl of Beaconsfield : No, it is not a seaport. Still,
there is Merv ; then there is a place whose name I forget ;
there is Grhuzni; then there is Balkh, then Candahar. My
opinion is that, though such places may not be essential to us,
yet that I should regret to see any great military Power in posses-
sion of them — I should look upon such an event with regret, and
perhaps with some degree of apprehension ; but if the great mili-
tary Power were there, I trust we might still be able to maintain
our empire. But my lords, the key of India is not Herat or
Candahar. The key of India is London. The majesty and
sovereignty, the spirit and vigour of your Parliament, the
inexhaustible resources, the ingenuity and determination of
your people — these are the keys of India. But, my lords, a
wise statesman would be chary in drawing upon what I may call
the arterial sources of his power. He would use selection, and
would seek to sustain his empire by recourse to local resources
only, which would meet his purpose. You have always observed
that system in this country for the last hundred years. You
have skilfully appropriated many strong places in the world. You
have erected a range of fortifications ; you have overcome
countries by the valour of your soldiers and the efforts of your
engineers. Well, my lords, I hope that we shall pursue the
same policy. If we pursue the same policy, Candahar is
eminently one of those places which would contribute to the
maintenance of that empire. It is advisable to retain it on
economical grounds, as it is now held by us ; and, as my noble
friend said in his speech, would it be a becoming course for us
now to withdraw, when the fact that the power of England can
be felt promptly and on the spot is the best security for peace,
and the best security for peace must be the best defence in case
of war ?

The views taken by my noble friend l below the gangway
are essentially erroneous views, and in no one point are they
more erroneous, I think, than in what he said of the oppor-
tunity which the House of Lords now has of expressing its
opinion. I do not wish in any way to maintain an exaggerated
view. Feeling myself keenly upon the question of Candahar, I

1 Lord Derby.

EVACUATION OF CANDAHAR, MARCH 1881. 271

believe there is a real and a deep feeling, and, what is more, an
increasing feeling, on the subject. The subject is being more
considered, opinion will become more matured. There cannot
be, therefore, a more legitimate occasion for the Peers of
England to come forward and to give to the country the results
of their wisdom and their experience, as I hope they will to-
night, in reference to the Empire of India.

PAET III.

IRELAND.

IISK ELECTION PETITIONS (MAIDEN

SPEECH) DEC. 7, 1837.

IMS BILL, IRELAND .... AUG. 9, 1843.

[ENDMENT TO ADDRESS . . . FEB. 1, 1849.

tIRD READING IRISH CHURCH BILL MAY 31, 1869.

SPEECH ON ADDRESS .... FEB. 8, 1870.

)OND READING IRISH LAND BILL . MARCH 11, 1870.

WESTMEATH COMMITTEE . . . FEB. 27, 1871.

IRISH UNIVERSITY EDUCATION BILL . MARCH 11, 1873.

COMPENSATION FOR DISTURBANCE

BILL AUG. 3, 1880.

PROTECTION TO PERSON AND PROPERTY

BILL MARCH 1, 1881.

VOL. II.

275

IRISH ELECTION PETITIONS. December 7, 1837. l

MAIDEN SPEECH.

[The first Parliament of Queen Victoria assembled on November
13, 1837, and on December 6 the attention of the House was called
by Mr. Smith O'Brien to ' the existence of an Election Subscription
Fund, carried on for several months in England and Scotland for the
purpose of encouraging the presentation of petitions against members
returned to serve in the present Parliament for the counties, cities,
towns, and boroughs of Ireland, and of defraying the expenses attendant
upon the conduct and prosecution of the same.' The result was that
on the following day a debate took place on the subject, Mr. Smith
O'Brien moving for a Select Committee ' to inquire into the allega-
tions ' contained in the petition aforesaid. The motion was opposed
both by the Government and the Opposition, and supported of course
by the Irish members. Sir Francis Burdett, then member for North
Wilts, was one of the offenders aimed at, and his speech was answered
by O'Connell. When O'Connell sat down the new member for Maid-
stone rose. The earlier part of the following speech, at all events,
seems sensible and practical enough ; but that in some way or another
the speaker, before he had done, succeeded in making himself ridi-
ilous, is a fact too well attested to be doubted.]

"E. DISEAELI rose and said, that he trusted the House
would extend to him that gracious indulgence which
was usually allowed to one who solicited its attention for the
first time. He had, however, had sufficient experience of the
critical spirit which pervaded the House, to know and to feel
how much he stood in need of that indulgence — an indulgence
of which he would prove himself to be not unworthy, by pro-
mising not to abuse it. The honourable and learned member

1 This speech is reprinted from Hansard's Debates by permission of Mr.
Hansard.

T 2

276 SPEECHES OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD.

for Dublin l had taunted the honourable baronet, the member
for North Wiltshire,2 with having uttered a long, rambling,
wandering, jumbling speech. Now, he must say — and he
could assure the honourable and learned gentleman that he
had paid the utmost attention to the remarks which flowed
from him — that it seemed to him that the honourable and
learned gentleman had taken a hint from the honourable
baronet in the oration which the honourable and learned gentle-
man had just addressed to the House. There was scarcely a
single subject connected with Ireland which the honourable
and learned member had not introduced into his rhetorical
medley. The honourable and learned member for Dublin had
also taunted the honourable and learned member for Exeter 3
with travelling out of the record of the present debate, while
he himself had travelled back 700 years, though the House was
engaged in the discussion of events which had taken place
within the last few months.

The honourable and learned member had favoured the
House with an allusion to poor-laws for Ireland. Perhaps he
was wrong ; but at all events there had been an allusion to
the Irish Corporation Bill. He did not pretend that he could
accurately remember all the topics the honourable and learned
member had introduced into his speech ; but, if no reference
had been made by the honourable and learned gentleman to
the subject of Irish poor-laws, at least there had been a dis-
sertation upon the measure relating to the municipal corpora-
tions of Ireland. Was that subject relative to the debate
before the House ? He would not allude — for he would spare
the feelings of the honourable and learned member in that
respect — to the subscriptions which the honourable and learned
member had told the House had not been successful on his
side ; but that circumstance might account for the bitterness
with which he spoke of the successful efforts of the much-
vilified Mr. Spottiswoode.4 He had, indeed, been much incline

1 Mr. D. O'Connell. * Sir Francis Burdett.

3 Sir William Follett.

4 After the return of the new Parliament in the summer of 1837, it
alleged that many of the Irish returns which were favourable to the O'Connell
party were attributable to intimidation and corruption, and on these grounds

IEISH ELECTION PETITIONS, DECEMBEK 1837. 277

to ask the honourable member for Limerick (Mr. O'Brien) if
he had attended the meeting at which it had been expected
that^every Liberal member would subscribe 5QL to the protec-
tion fund. He had thought that perhaps the honourable
member could have given some curious information upon that
subject ; that, though there might have been 3,OOOZ. or 2,9501.
to begin with, there was now nothing in the exchequer, and that
this project of majestic mendicancy had now wholly vanished.
The honourable and learned member for Dublin had announced
that the Spottiswoode subscription was a Protestant subscrip-
tion. That it was supported by many Protestants nobody could
attempt to deny, but if the honourable and learned member
meant to say that it was a subscription established for the
particular object of supporting a Protestant faction against the
Catholic people, he begged to remark that he saw nothing at
all to justify that supposition. It might be a Protestant, but
it was essentially a defensive fund.

The honourable and learned member for Dublin had talked
of the clergymen of the Church of England subscribing to this
fund, and had contrasted their conduct with that of the priests
of his Church ; but he defied the honourable and learned
member to produce a single instance of tyrannical interference
on the part of the Protestant clergy at all similar, or in the
least degree analogous, to those acts which were imputed to
the clergy of the Catholic Church. If the honourable and
learned member doubted what he was saying, let him refer to
the volume of evidence taken before the Intimidation Com-
mittee, and the honourable member would see that from Corn-
wall to Yorkshire no case had occurred that bore a comparison
to the occurrences in Ireland, and that he was fully justified
in the statements he made. The object of the subscription
entered into was to procure justice for the Protestant con-
stituencies and the Protestant proprietors of Ireland, those
constituencies and those proprietors being unable to obtain
justice single-handed. Honourable members knew very well

it was resolved to contest them. A public subscription was opened to defray
the expenses ; and at the head of the committee of management appeared the
name of Mr. Andrew Spottiswoode, the Queen's printer.

278 SPEECHES OF THE EAEL OF BEACOKSFIELD.

that a landlord in Ireland had been told by his tenants that
they could not vote for him because their priest had denounced
him from the altar. They knew very well that when it was
attempted to reinforce the strength of the Protestant con-
stituency in the registration courts, some revising or assistant
barrister from the Castle of Dublin was easily found to baffle it,
and thus were they forced on to their last resource and refuge
— to a committee of that House.

Now was this a petition which had the downfall of the
Catholics for its obj ect ? For his part, he thought that the
facts which had been brought before the notice of the Intimi-
dation Committee perfectly justified the use of the epithets
which had been employed in the original circular or manifesto
of Mr. Spottiswoode. He should not trouble the House at
any length. He did not affect to be insensible to the difficulty
of his position, and he should be very glad to receive indul-
gence even from the honourable members opposite. If, how-
ever, honourable gentlemen did not wish to hear him, he would
sit down without a murmur. He should confine himself to an
attempt to bring back the subject to the point which was really
at issue. He could not comprehend why a considerable body
of Her Majesty's subjects respectable not only for their num-
bers, but for their independence and integrity, should be held
up to scorn and odium by the honourable and learned member
for Dublin, for the commission of an act the legality of which
he had not presumed to question, of the propriety of which they
were as competent judges as that honourable and learned
member, and of which, after what he had himself confessed,
the honourable and learned member ought to be the last to
question the delicacy.

He had examined the list of contributors, as well as the
honourable and learned member for Dublin, and with a more
than ordinary degree of interest, arising from the fact that the
town which he represented had contributed a larger proportion
of the fund than any part of England, and he did not find that
the subscribers principally consisted of members of the aristo-
cracy. With very few exceptions they were to be found among
the middle classes — men of moderate opinions and of a temperate

IKISH ELECTION PETITIONS, DECEMBER 1837. 279

tone of mind — men, in fact, who seldom stepped out of the
sphere of their private virtues — men, as honourable gentlemen
who had examined these lists must know, who seldom partook
of the excitement created by the conflict of parties, and were
rarely inflamed by the passions which agitated the political
world. He must say that he thought it a very strange thing
that so large a body of individuals, many of whom were con-
stitutional Eeformers, many of whom, until very lately, sup-
ported Her Majesty's Government — he must repeat, that he
considered that it would be very hard, very unjust, very impolitic
to appoint a committee of inquiry, which would be equivalent
to a verdict against those individuals, without first inquiring
what were the feelings which induced them to pursue the line
of conduct which they had adopted. He would remind the
House that those individuals, many of whom supported the
Reform Bill, might have entertained hopes in reference to the
working of that measure which, like the hopes cherished by
some honourable gentlemen opposite, might have been disap-
pointed. They might have entertained an expectation that
nomination would be at an end, that the stain of borough-
mongering would be wiped out, and that not a remnant of the
system would remain in a Reformed Parliament. But when
they found that the stain of boroughmongering assumed a
deeper and a darker hue, that seats were openly bought and
sold, and that a system of intimidation was organised, compared
with which the riots which even under the old system exhibited
the more flagrant features of electoral operations, were peaceable
— when they found that this was the case, they perhaps thought
that it was time to bring matters to a head.

He had but one more observation to make, and he con-
fessed he was rather anxious to make that observation, as it
would give him the first opportunity which had been afforded
him of saying something with respect to Her Majesty's
Government. He wished he could induce the House to give
him five minutes. It was not much. He stood there to-night
not formally, but in some degree virtually, as the representa-
tive of a considerable number of members of Parliament.
Now, why smile ? Why envy him ? Why not let him enjoy

280 SPEECHES OF THE EAEL OF BEACONSFIELD.

that reflection, if only for one night ? Did they forget that
band of 158 new members, that ingenuous and inexperienced
band, to whose unsophisticated minds the right honourable the
Chancellor of the Exchequer addressed himself early in the
session in those dulcet tones of winning pathos which had
proved so effective ? He knew that considerable misconcep-
tion existed in the minds of many of that class of members on
the Opposition side of the House in reference to the conduct of
Her Majesty's Government with respect to elections. He
would not taunt the noble lord opposite with the opinions
which were avowed by his immediate followers, but certain
views were entertained and certain calculations were made
with respect to those elections about the time when the bell of
our cathedral announced the death of our monarch. We had
all then heard of the projects said to be entertained by the
Government, and a little accurate information on the subject
would be very acceptable, particularly to the new members on
the Opposition side of the House.

We had been told that reaction was a discovery that only
awoke derision, that the grave of Toryism was dug, and that
the funeral obsequies of Toryism might be celebrated without
any fear of its resuscitation, that the much-vilified Peel Parlia-
ment was blown to the winds, when Mr. Hudson rushed into
the chambers of the Vatican. He did not impute these sanguine
views to the noble lord himself, for he had subsequently favoured
the public with a manifesto, from which it would appear that
Toryism could not be so easily defeated. It was, however,
vaunted that there would be a majority of 100, which upon
great occasions might be expanded to 125 or 130. That was
the question. They wished to know the simple fact whether,
with that majority in the distance, they then thought of an
alteration in the Grenville Act, and whether it was then sup-
posed that impartial tribunals might be obtained for the trial
of election petitions. If honourable gentlemen thought this
fair, he would submit. He would not do so to others ; that was
all. Nothing was so easy as to laugh. He wished, before he
sat down, to show the House clearly their position. When they
remembered, that in spite of the support of the honourable and

IKISH ELECTION PETITIONS, DECEMBER 1837. 281

learned member for Dublin and his well-disciplined band of
patriots, there was a little shyness exhibited by former sup-
porters of Her Majesty's Government; when they recollected
the ' new loves ' and the ' old loves,' in which so much of pas-
sion and recrimination was mixed up between the noble Tityras
of the Treasury bench and the learned Daphne of Liskeard —
notwithstanding the amantium ira had resulted, as he had
always expected, in the amoris integratio — notwithstanding
that political duel had been fought, in which more than one
shot was interchanged, but in which recourse was had to the
secure arbitrament of blank cartridges — notwithstanding eman-
cipated Ireland and enslaved England, the noble lord might
wave in one hand the keys of St. Peter, and in the other — (the
shouts that followed drowned the conclusion of the sentence).
* Let them see the philosophical prejudices of man.' He would
certainly gladly hear a cheer, even though it came from the
lips of a political opponent. He was not at all surprised at the
reception which he had experienced. He had begun several
times many things, and he had often succeeded at last. He
would sit down now, but the time would come when they would
hear him. (The impatience of the House would not allow the
honourable member to finish his speech, and during the greater
part of the time the honourable member was on his legs, he
was so much interrupted that it was impossible to hear ivhat
the honourable member said.} — HANSARD.

282 SPEECHES OF THE EAEL OF BEACONSFIELD.

ARMS BILL (IRELAND). August 9, 1843.

I

[On April 29, in consequence of the disturbed state of Ireland
resulting from the Repeal movement, leave was given to bring in a
Bill on the above subject ; and on August 9, on the third reading,
Mr. Disraeli, after remarking that Sir Robert Peel had changed front
so completely on his Irish policy that his followers must now shift
for themselves, and were released from all obligations to support
him, went on to give an historical sketch of the relations of the Tory
party to Ireland. In this assertion of independence he was joined
by Lord John Manners, Mr. Smyth, Mr. B. Cochrane, and others,
and it may be interesting at this distance of time to recall the im-
pression produced upon the public mind by this first open declaration
of hostility to Sir R. Peel's Government.1 The following extract
is from a leading article in the ' Morning Chronicle ' of August 1 1 : —

' Amid all the false-heartedness of public men, and all the dupli-
city which has poisoned public spirit, it is cheering to remark, from
the conduct of the young men on the Tory Benches, that there is, in
the eloquent words of the member for Shrewsbury, some hope " that
the time will come when a party will be formed in this country on
the principle of justice to Ireland — justice, not by quailing before
agitation, not by adopting in despair the first quack remedy offered
on either side, but by really putting an end to that misery which
long misgovernment had produced — that misery which was the real
cause of all the evil of Ireland, and which until it was put an end to,
would not cease to be the bane of England and the opprobrium of
Europe." '

The next is from the ' Times ' of August 17 : —

' It appears that some honourable members who have come lately
into notice, and, we will add, into favourable notice — so far at least
as honourable character and talent is concerned — choose to combine
with a general declared support of the administration, opposition to
it upon certain particular subjects. Lord John Manners, Mr. Smyth,
Mr. Disraeli, Mr. Cochrane, and . others, animadverted during the
late debate upon the policy of ministers, and on Tuesday night Mr.

1 Cf. Introduction to Speech, June 17, 1844.

ARMS BILL (IRELAND), AUGUST 1843. 283

Disraeli reflected upon some of the measures of Government in the
Servian affair. Upon this Lord Sandon rose up and made a furious
attack upon Mr. Disraeli for daring to show such disagreement with
Government, and went on to make most invidious and uncalled-for
observations upon other honourable members who had been recently
using the same liberty.

' Is it really come to this, that in a House of Commons, in which
every man has for years and years thought himself at full liberty to
talk as much nonsense as he likes, for as long as he likes, gentlemen
of some sense and talent are not to be allowed to express their
opinions upon points, whether of foreign or Irish legislation, without
being taunted and silenced 1 Is the Magna Charta of the House to
be invaded, and that at the expense of speakers who really have not
as yet needed its indulgence ? Have these gentlemen, we ask,
spoken more diffusely, tediously, lengthily than they should? If
they had, the example of members would have borne them out ; but
we do not hear that they have. When they have spoken, they have
spoken to the point, and because they had something to say, Every-
body allows this.

' It is not to defend " Young England," who are amply able to
defend themselves, that we make these remarks, but to maintain the
principle of free and fair debate against such attempts to cow and
bully as have been lately exhibited. It is not for the benefit of the
public, or really for the minister himself (however much for his
temporary convenience), that he should be completely independent of
and above all questions from his own party. Above all, it is not for
the public good that any talent should be kept down, and excluded
from a fair field of exercise and training which the debates afford.
The country is not in a state to dispense with any rising intellect and
vigour — any heads that give promise. The latter may not be ready
for service yet — most public men require years of labour and drudgery
to bring them into action. There may be ideas that require maturing
and principles that require moulding and accommodating, before they
can be brought to bear upon the present state of things. Parties
have been stiffened into a certain attitude for the last two centuries,
and certain men seem wanted politically, and others not, and that is
all that your superficial statesman says. But who knows when a
thaw and loosening may come — when older heads may have gone, new
events may have happened, and new modes of thinking may be de-
manded and come into play ] '

Apropos of a leading article which appeared in the ' Times ' of
August 11, Mr. Disraeli addressed the following letter to the editor : —

284 SPEECHES OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD.

' SIK, — Your paper of to-day contains a leading article very ingeni-
ously written, but which is entirely founded upon error.

' You describe me as having " ungenerously reproached the Prime
Minister, in the late debate on the Irish Arms Bill, for the failure of
his industrial measures " — a reproach which, you justly observe,
came with ill grace from a member who had voted for the tariff and
the new Corn Law last year, and who had energetically defended
them before his constituents during the present.

' A typographical error has misled you. The reproach which you
have ascribed to me, and which was noticed by Sir Robert Peel, was
urged by the honourable member for Liskeard.

' I voted for " the industrial measures " of Sir Robert Peel last
year, and defended them during the present, because I believed, and
still believe, that they were founded on sound principles of commer-
cial policy : principles which were advocated by that great Tory
statesman, Lord Bolingbroke, in 1713; principles which, in abeyance
during the Whig Government of seventy years, were revived by that
great Tory statesman, Mr. Pitt ; and, though their progress was dis-
turbed by war and revolution, were faithful to the traditional policy
of the Tory party, sanctioned and developed, on the return of peace
and order, by Lord Liverpool.

' It is not merely with reference to commercial policy that I believe
that a recurrence to old Tory principles would be of great advantage
to this country. It is a specific in my opinion, and the only one,
for many of those disquiettides which now perplex our society. I see
no other remedy for that war of classes and creeds which now agitates
and menaces us, but in an earnest return to a system which may be
described generally as one of loyalty and reverence of popular rights
and social sympathies. — I have the honour to be, Sir,

' Your faithful servant,

' BENJAMIN DISKAELI.
'Grosvenor Gate, Park Lane : August 11, 1843.']

MR. DISKAELI said, that, when in opposition, the ministerial
party had been accused of making Ireland their cheval de
bataille to slide into office upon. It had been made a heinous
offence in them, that they had supported the Registration Bill of
the noble lord, now the Secretary for the Colonies.1 In lending
his support to that Bill, he would not deny that he had looked
upon it as a party question ; still he had thought that good
cause had been shown for the measure, and in this belief he

1 Lord Stanley.

AKMS BILL (IRELAND), AUGUST 1843. 285

had been strengthened when he found the Bill received the
support of persons from whom his own party were little in the
habit of receiving support. When he found himself going out
in a division with the noble lord the member for Sunderland,1
and the honourable gentleman the member for Halifax,2 he
scarcely thought the time would ever come when, for his support
of that Bill, he should be held to have been guilty of factious
opposition to the Government. The House would recollect
that, in the course of a protracted opposition, the right honour-
able baronet selected two questions, by which he led the
country to believe that, if he came into power, his system of
government in Ireland might be, in some degree, anticipated.
These two measures were, the Keform of the Municipal Insti-
tutions, and a measure for the Eegistration of Voters. What
had been the conduct of the right honourable gentleman with
respect to these two measures since he had been in power ?
After a struggle of many years, the right honourable gentleman
entered office on the strength of his policy with respect to
Ireland ; for it was not to be denied that the divisions on the
Irish Eegistration Bill were the things that really overturned
the late Government. The moment the right honourable
gentleman was in office, he selected for the office of Secretary
for Ireland a noble lord3 whom he (Mr. Disraeli) had long
known and always highly esteemed, but the selection of that
noble lord was a virtual admission on the part of the right
honourable gentleman that he had been wrong in the course he
had pursued when in opposition with respect to the question of
municipal reform.

Very shortly after the right honourable gentleman came
into power, he took an opportunity to announce that the sub-
ject of the registration of voters in Ireland, a question on
which so much interest was felt throughout the country, would
not be proceeded with; not only that the Bill of the noble
lord was not to be resumed, but that no measure of a similar
character would be brought forward. The right honourable
gentleman thus admitted that his course, while in opposition,

1 Lord Howick.

2 Mr. C. Wood, afterwards Sir Charles Wood. 3 Lord Eliot.

286 SPEECHES OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD.

as far as this measure was concerned, was diametrically wrong,
and that those to whom he had been opposed had acted cor-
rectly. He did not blame the right honourable gentleman
for this conduct. If the right honourable gentleman thought
that the line he had taken in opposition was not one which
a minister of this country could adopt, the right honour-
able gentleman had taken a right and prudent course in
abandoning it when he came into office. But he drew this
inference, which he thought was a most important one, that, as
regarded Irish policy, they who were the followers and sup-
porters of the right honourable gentleman were now left to
themselves. That was, he thought, the plain, the irresistible
conviction that must press itself on the mind of every honour-
able gentlemen who sat on that side of the House. For a
number of years they had supported the right honourable
gentleman on these two important subjects. The right
honourable gentleman succeeded to office mainly on account
of the line he had taken in opposition on those two subjects,
and he had virtually announced to the House and the country,
that he had been in error. He gave the right honourable
gentleman full credit for the sincerity of his conviction ; but
having now no guide on the subject of Ireland, no means of
forming an opinion — Ireland being in a state which challenged
and demanded some opinions — he said they were plainly
free from any bonds of party on the subject, for the right
honourable gentleman himself had broken them, and they
had a right, they were, in fact, bound, to form their own
opinion of what they considered really, in the sincerity of their
conviction, was most adapted to the advantage of the two coun-
tries.

He said this, because it was, in fact, a course which was
necessary to prevent gentlemen on that side of the House from
being stultified by the position in which they were placed. To
many, no doubt, it would have been very convenient that Ireland
should have remained in a state of great tranquillity, and that
they should not have been forced to give an opinion on the
subject. He was sure that many who supported the right
honourable gentleman would have felt it much more agreeable

AEMS BILL (IRELAND), AUGUST 1843. 287

to avoid any Irish discussion; but being told by the right
honourable gentleman himself that he had unfortunately been
a blind guide in opposition on the subject of Ireland, they
must not look to him, nor to the views he announced, as
orthodox. When the House, therefore, saw members of his
Government come forward and propose a measure which com-
pelled the House to consider the state of Ireland, what remained
for them but to form the best opinion they could, without the
advantage of any official light, on this the most important
subject in the modern policy of this country ? At least they
must endeavour to form an opinion which, if not absolutely
sound, might not be so totally devoid of all pretensions to
wise policy as that which for a number of years they had
adopted, and which they had the misfortune to find, on the
announcement of their leader, was in fact perfectly erroneous.

An honourable gentleman on his side of the House had
taken a view of what he considered the duty of his party on
the subject of Ireland, at which some members seemed to
have been surprised, and he defended these views by holding
them up as the old Tory doctrines, the legitimate doctrines
of the party with which he was connected. He knew that
that statement was historically true, and he believed it to
be politically just. But there was no anarchy greater, no
principle if followed out would be more fatal to the policy
of this country, and to the character of public men, than to
suppose that the two great parties which had governed the
State were mere factions, without distinctive principles, and
absolute differences in their policy. He was sure honourable
gentlemen opposite, from whom he differed, were the last
men who would attempt to controvert an opinion of that kind.
Their leader, who was unfortunately not then present, had on
more than one occasion given what he might call a pedigree of
patriotism, proud of the great measures which, in the course
of the last two hundred years, the party with which he was
connected had introduced and carried. The noble lord had
given the House his view of the character of those measures,
and the consequences to which they had led ; and they were,
he did not for a moment hesitate to admit, great measures, of

288 SPEECHES OF THE EAEL OF BEACONSFIELD.

which a party might well be proud, and which none but great
men, so numerous in the political history of this country,
could have framed.

He contended, also, that the party with which he was con-
nected, had held great distinctive principles, and carried them
out. He said, too, that those principles, at different periods,
had been advocated by men as great, and by peers as eloquent,
as any that had adorned the party on the other side. But
he said, when that party was left in the lurch by their own
leader, when he threw up the reins, and told them he had
made a mistake, and that he could give them no further
advice, and that the policy he pursued was perfectly erro-
neous, it was their duty to remember the original principles
of the party with which they were connected, and he for one
could not find in the history of that party any grounds for
assuming that hostility to the Irish people was a distinctive
ingredient of what was called Tory policy. He found the
fact to be exactly the reverse. He knew that there had
been monarchs as Protestant as any that could exist — as
Protestant as any under whom he, for one, could wish to live.
In the time of that great queen, Elizabeth, to whom they so.
often appealed, in the time of another monarch of whose
Protestantism the Church of England would not doubt, since
she canonised him as a saint, and reverenced him as a martyr,
that was not the policy pursued, these were not the sentiments
encouraged with respect to the Roman Catholic population of
Ireland.

They had heard another night of the Treaty of Limerick ;
but no one reminded the House, when it entered on the
subject of the Irish Church, of the secret articles of the famous
Glamorgan treaty, one of which contained a scheme for the
adjustment of the claims of the rival churches, which had
never been broached in debate in that House. That clause
alone showed what was the feeling of those whose amity to the
Church of England could not be doubted on the delicate and
important subject of the claims of the Irish Church. He could
not observe that at any later period of our history, whenever
those questions had been discussed, whenever what was called

ARMS BILL (IRELAND), AUGUST 1843. 289

the Tory party had had the preponderance in the State, that
any other line of policy had been adopted. It was true that
circumstances had occurred to which he merely referred for
illustration, because he did not wish to introduce the bitterness
of party into this debate. The Whig party for seventy years
had the command of the Government, and the course of their
policy was hostile to the Roman Catholics of Ireland. That
was an historical fact which no one could controvert. But even
at the time when the Tory party was overthrown, and pro-
scribed, and when it was led by an attainted and exiled leader,
principles were always advocated in harmony with those to
which he had referred, and on all occasions of political contest
the Roman Catholic population of this country supported the
claims of the Tory party. He said this because at a time like
this it was necessary to recur to the principles which were the
foundation of the party, when those who had been its leaders
no longer led it, and they found themselves sinking into a
faction, degenerating into the lowest position in which a public
man could be placed — when, in fact, they were supporting a
ministry without knowing what principles they were main-
taining.

He wished to enforce this position on the House, because
he thought there was nothing more strange than that the gen-
tlemen of England, those who were the descendants of the
cavaliers, should in fact always be advocates for governing
Ireland on the principles of the Roundheads. At present, the
state of Ireland forced itself upon their attention. He was
not going, at this period of the session, to descant on the
grievances of Ireland or the empirical remedies which had
been proposed to cure them; but he wished to remind the
House of the subjects brought before them, and pressed on
their attention by the popular voice. There was the tenure of
land, a question which had shaken empires to their centres,
and occasioned more revolutions than any other cause. There
was the maintenance of the poor, electoral rights, the claims
of the rival churches, whether you should maintain one line of
ecclesiastical policy, or substitute another. Whether these
were genuine grievances, founded on absolute necessity, or

VOL. II. U

290 SPEECHES OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD.

merely the fantastical inventions of those who were called
agitators, it was a fact that such questions were mooted, that
such questions interested millions, and that was enough to show
that the state of such a country demanded the most serious
attention. What was the consideration which the statesmen
of the present day gave to these questions ? They had
announced to the House, almost in an ostentatious manner,
that they intended to do nothing, because to do nothing was
in their minds the wisest policy.

Now, if one could suppose for a moment that the curtain
would fall upon Ireland as it fell in a theatre when a certain
number of acts had been performed, one might conceive that
those gentlemen who formed the present cabinet had some founda-
tion for the policy which they had stated it was their intention
to pursue. They reasoned, they acted, as if the moment that
Parliament was prorogued Ireland must be tranquillised ; that,
in fact, the present agitation was a sort of divertissement got
up to form the materials of debate. He heard almost a silent
cheer, as if that was a version of the movement now in progress
accepted by some one ; but to believe that, they must reject all
the facts that had come to their knowledge, and throw aside all
the evidence on which their information was founded. He had
a right to suppose that this immense agitation, which was con-
fessed by ministers to exist, and the causes of which they said
they were not prepared to remove, would still subsist, and even be
aggravated. He knew that it was said this remarkable conduct,
this paralysis of policy, which was now fashionable, was, in fact,
occasioned by a dissension in the cabinet. That had been
alleged, in more than one quarter; it had always been his
opinion, and he had his reasons for it. They were not reasons
of any confidential nature, and, therefore, he had a right to
state them.

He had never heard of a cabinet yet, since the institution
of cabinets, in which there was not a dissension. He defied
any man to go through the history of cabinets, from Stanhope
to the Pelhams, and from the Pelhams to the Pitts, and to
find one which had gone on for twenty-four months without
very serious and even fatal dissensions. In modern times

ARMS BILL (IRELAND), AUGUST 1843. 291

even the right honourable gentleman himself entered the
cabinet through a dissension. He was not in the cabinet, and
it was wished he should be, and one morning, without the
slightest preparation, the Secretary of State l found that he was
no longer Secretary, and the right honourable gentleman
became Secretary in his place. Even in the most quiet times,
in the cabinet presided over by the patient and benignant
genius of Lord Liverpool, dissensions sprung up in the cabinet.
Lord Castlereagh died, and a series of bickerings took place.
Mr. Canning entered the cabinet ; dissensions soon took place
relative to the introduction of Mr. Huskisson ; and when Mr.
Canning died, in a moment all the suppressed evil passions
broke forth, and from that time to the present there never had
been twelve months without dissensions in the cabinet.

The right honourable gentleman's own cabinet did not
exist more than a few months before dissensions took place,
and an eminent person who was a member of the cabinet
left it; and they had a right to believe that there were dis-
sensions now. They had the Lord Chancellor of England
declaring in the House of Lords that meetings held to petition
for the repeal of the legislative union were illegal ; and they
had it declared to the House of Commons, by order of the
Lord Chancellor of Ireland, that those meetings were per-
fectly legal, provided they were peaceable. The Leader of
the Government in another House was chalking * No Popery '
on the walls, while the leader of the Government in that
House told them that he, for himself, cared nothing about
Protestant or Papist — Tros Tyriusve — he did not care what a
man believed, and meant to be strictly impartial. When they
found systems so inconsistent — policy so totally opposed — alike
only in one great result, imbecility of the most lamentable
nature, he had a right to believe that there were dissensions in
the cabinet. He believed it, and he believed that they would destroy
this or any other cabinet which did not address itself to the ques-
tion of the Government of Ireland in a very different spirit. It
was perfectly clear, if you destroyed the Protestant, and estab-

1 Lord Sidmonth.

292 SPEECHES OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD.

lished the Eoman Catholic Church to-morrow, or chose any iso-
lated remedies, one after the other, you would produce no im-
provement in the state of Ireland. It had arrived at that pitch
which required a great man to have recourse to great remedial
measures. It was not a single remedy, but a simultaneous
adoption of all those which had been indicated, and many more
might be indicated, which would restore Ireland to the state
which every man, whether Irish or English, must feel to be
desirable.

You must reorganise and reconstruct the Government,
and even the social, state of Ireland. Nothing could prevent
it — they might cry ' question,' but they would not cry ques-
tion twelve months hence. It was not by having recourse
to any of those measures brought forward in a great degree
from party feeling, but in some degree, too, from sincere
conviction ; it was not by mere empirical remedies that they
could give peace and contentment to Ireland. With re-
spect to the present measure he had little to say. Well, he
would give his reason. He did not wish to use a harsh term,
and, therefore, he would refrain from saying that the measure
considered with reference to the present state of Ireland, was
contemptible. The opposition to such a measure, taken also
with reference to the present state of Ireland, must naturally,
in some degree, be entitled to the same epithet ; but there
were some measures which to introduce was disgraceful, and
which to oppose was degrading. He had given no vote on this
Bill one way or the other, and he should continue that course,
being perfectly persuaded of its futility. Believing that
Ireland was governed in a manner which conduced only to the
injury of both countries ; that the principles declared by
ministers were not capable of relieving us from the difficult
position in which we were placed; believing that the old
principles of the party with which he was connected were quite
competent, if pursued, to do that, he hoped the time would
come when a party framed on true principles would do justice
to Ireland, not by satisfying agitators — not by adopting, in
despair, the first quack remedy that was offered from either

AKMS BILL (IRELAND), AUGUST 1843. 293

side of the House, but by really penetrating into the mystery
of this great misgovernment, so as to bring about a state of
society which would be advantageous both to England and
Ireland, and which would put an end to a state of things that
was the bane of England and opprobrium of Europe.

294 SPEECHES OF THE EAKL OF BEACONSFIELD.

AMENDMENT TO ADDKESS. February 1, 1849.

[By the death of Lord George Bentinck in the previous autumn,
Mr. Disraeli had now become leader of the Opposition in the House
of Commons. The brief ]?ut eloquent tribute to the memory of his
deceased friend — alas, how appropriate to himself at the present
moment !— which occurs early in the following speech is a signal
example of the special felicity with which he expressed himself on
such occasions.]

JAM sure, Sir, that Her Majesty, since her accession, has
never delivered a gracious Speech to Her Parliament in
which she has felt it her duty to allude to subjects of much
greater importance than in that Speech to which we have listened
to-day ; but I am bound to say that both in that Speech which
Her Majesty has been advised to address to her Parliament,
and in that answer which has now been proposed for us to offer
at the foot of the Throne, I do not find that a fair and candid
statement is conveyed as to the condition of this country — not
a candid statement either as regards the internal condition of
this country or its external relations.

At this moment, important and numerous as are the sub-
jects for our consideration, doubtless the most urgent would
seem to be the state of Ireland. The language which I find
in the note that I have made of the Speech, does not convey
to me the impression that Her Majesty's ministers are of
opinion that the state of Ireland requires any immediate
remedy. The language is obscure ; and if it can be satisfac-
torily explained, it will show the advantage of discussion in the
present instance. I find it stated that ' the operation of the
laws for the relief of the poor in Ireland will properly be a sub-
ject of early inquiry ; and, any measures by which those laws
may be beneficially amended, and the condition of the people

AMENDMENT TO ADDRESS, FEBRUARY 1849. 295

may be improved, will receive my cordial assent.' Now, I
think it is of very great importance to know what Her Majesty's
ministers mean to convey by the phrase ' early inquiry.' Is it
an inquiry, for example, by a committee of the House of
Commons ? In that case the ' inquiry,' no doubt, might be
early, but the conclusion most probably would be late. And
why an inquiry by a committee of the House of Commons ?
We have had sufficient experience, I think, of what inquiries
by committees of the House of Commons may accomplish upon
subjects upon which an administration, duly informed, ought
to have initiated measures. I do not see why, in the present
instance, for example, the case of the Poor Law in Ireland
should be an exception to that experience. You have a Poor
Law Commission in Ireland ; you have a Government Board in
Ireland ; and I want to know from what sources can the ad-
ministration obtain more ample and satisfactory information
than from such quarters ? They ought to be in possession of
the information ; if they think there ought to be an alteration
in the laws, they ought to be prepared to legislate upon that
well-digested information. They have had sufficient time well
to consider the authentic information that has reached them ;
and certainly, in the present state of Ireland, if the only mea-
sure that Her Majesty's ministers are about to bring forward
with respect to that country is the proposition of an inquiry
into the operation of the Poor Law by a Parliamentary com-
mittee, I think that is a course neither satisfactory nor states-
manlike.

I do not doubt for a moment — no one can — the urgency of
the state of Ireland. Honourable gentlemen who represent
that country have much to answer for, in my opinion, to their
constituents. They have to consider whether the state of
Ireland is merely brought about by the present operation of
the Poor Laws — whether it may not have been in a great degree
occasioned and aggravated by other measures which they
supported, and by the non-adoption of other measures which
they opposed — measures to which, by-and-by, they gave their
private encouragement, and offered their public opposition.
Therefore, when gentlemen representing Ireland come forward

296 SPEECHES OF THE EAEL OF BEACONSFIELD.

and complain of the condition of Ireland, it is well that they
should recollect how far they individually may be responsible
for the present state of Ireland. I believe I see a gentleman
opposite who represents a county in Ireland. I read a speech
of his at a county meeting the other day ; I read the reasons
he alleged for the present condition of Ireland ; and one of the
weightiest was the repeal of the Corn Law in the year of our
Lord 1 846. But when I referred to the list of those who voted
for that repeal, I found in it the name of that worthy knight of
the shire. I think it is well for us to consider whether these
circumstances — Irish members complaining so much who sup-
ported that repeal, and who opposed measures that were
brought forward on this side of the House, though now privately
encouraged at meetings holden by these very same members —
are to be forgotten at this moment. I confess it is a subject
upon which I have little inclination or heart to dwell upon on
the present occasion.

There was a policy once proposed in this House with respect
to Ireland, which by the Irish members was defeated, but
which, if it had been pursued, would have produced a very
different effect from what we now see in that country — a policy
which subsequently was partially pursued, even by the Govern-
ment who then opposed it. The proposer of that policy is no
longer among us. At a time when everything that is occurring
vindicates his prescience and demands his energy, we have no
longer his sagacity to guide or his courage to sustain us. In
the midst of the Parliamentary strife, that plume can soar no
more round which we loved to rally. But he has left us the
legacy of heroes — the memory of his great name, and the in-
spiration of his great example.

297

IRISH CHURCH BILL. May 31, 1869.1
(THIRD READING.)

ME. DISRAELI, — Whatever may be the condition of the
Sustentation Fund 2 to which the honourable member
alludes, the sustentation fund of this debate seems to be nearly
exhausted. I trust, therefore, that the House will think that
I have not intruded at too early a period, if I ask their per-
mission to make a few observations before the vote is taken.
I was struck recently when meeting a member of this House
who has long been absent, and who, during that period, has
filled, in a distinguished manner, eminent posts in the service
of his Sovereign, by his remark that on returning to the House
of Commons, after more than thirty years' absence, he found
we were debating the very same subject as when he left it —
Ireland ! Ireland ! Ireland ! In those days, when the disorders
and discontents of a portion of the Irish people were brought
under the consideration of Parliament, there was only one
specific for the grievances then alleged and the disturbances
then felt. Statesman and agitator, Whigs and Tories, all
agreed that the causes of these discontents and disturbances
were political, and therefore the remedy for them must be of
the same character.

So year after year specifics of that kind were brought for-
ward by ministers — Parliamentary Keform, Municipal Reform,.
Jury Reform, great schemes of National Education, and great
systems of National Police — all of them to ameliorate the con-.

1 This speech is reprinted from Hansard's Delates by permission of Mr.
Hansard.

2 Mr. Miller, the member for Edinburgh, had referred to the Sustentation
Fund of the Free Kirk.

298 SPEECHES OF THE EAEL OF BEACONSFIELD.

dition of the people of Ireland. Yet, nevertheless, this was
ever discovered, that periodically, notwithstanding all these
measures of improvement, Parliament found itself in the same
position, and was obliged to introduce an Arms Bills or to pass
an Insurrection Act, and this was because all public men and
all parties persisted in shutting their eyes to the real cause of
Irish disturbance and discontent. None of them would recog-
nise that it was a physical cause, and produced by physical
circumstances, which, probably, no statesman and no party
could attempt to encounter or to remedy. Yet the simple
cause is now better understood, and we know that that dis-
turbance and that discontent were occasioned by this fact —
that more than a quarter of the people of Ireland consisted of
paupers, and paupers in a helpless condition. On a square
mile in Ireland, with reference to the cultivated portion of the
country, there was a population greater than is to be found
in any European or even any Asiatic country. This population
depended for their subsistence upon the humblest means that
probably any race of men ever existed upon. All these facts
are now recognised, and some light can be thrown on the state
of Ireland. But at that period tho'se who had to consider it
were perplexed and appalled by the difficulties they had'to
encounter. They had recourse to political palliatives, and they
trusted they might at least gain time.

When you conceive the position of a country where one-
fourth, and more than one-fourth, of the population were paupers,
and paupers in a helpless condition — when you know, as may
be proved by documents on this table, that there were 600,000
families in Ireland who were only employed for twenty out of
fifty-two weeks in the year — you can form some idea of a national
condition which does not now prevail in any part of Europe.
Eecollect also that this population in this state of extreme ad-
versity was not a stolid one, brutalised by their condition, as has
sometimes happened in other parts of Europe, but a nation of
much susceptibility, of quick feeling and imagination, ready to
place themselves under the leading of any impassioned orator
who called upon them to assemble and discuss the grievances
of their country, or quick to yield to all the subdolous machinery

IRISH CHURCH BILL, MAY 1869. 299

which constitutes a secret society. And so you had in Ireland
gigantic public meetings on a scale that never took place in
any other country — as at Clontarf and Tara ; or, on the
other hand, you had Ribbon societies and organisations of that
kind. All this time the country was governed by a peculiarly
weak administration. With institutions which, from circum-
stances, were necessarily, even if of a beneficial kind, of a limited
influence, you had to encounter elements of disorder and
disturbance in Ireland with the weakest administration probably
that ever was devised by man.

Well, now, under such circumstances everyone felt that the
position of Ireland was one which would always constitute the
difficulty of a British minister, and one of the most eminent of
British ministers acknowledged that Ireland was his difficulty.
He only acknowledged that that was his fate which was the
destiny of every minister of every party who attempted to meet
such circumstances, and everybody felt that nothing but some
great event, impossible to contemplate, could possibly remedy
a state of affairs so anomalous and irregular as that which
prevailed in Ireland. A revolution might have produced the
necessary consequences and changes in any other country ; but
a revolution in Ireland seemed impossible, and a human and
political revolution was impossible in Ireland from its connection
with England. But a revolution did take place. Not one of
those great changes produced by political parties, because it
was an event which destroyed parties ; not produced by political
passions, because it appeased and allayed all political passions
• — one of the most appalling events that have occurred in
modern times, perhaps the most awful and appalling event
that ever happened in any European country. The limited
means of sustenance by which those 2,000,000 of hopeless
paupers had existed suddenly vanished, as if stricken from the
soil. They perished by thousands and tens of thousands.
Emigration followed famine and disease. In the course of a
year after that emigration you had to pass in this House an
Act of Confiscation of many estates in that country, and, so far
as revolution is concerned, there is no revolution of modern
times which ever produced changes so extensive as were occa-

300 SPEECHES OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD.

sioned by the famine, by the emigration, and by the Incum-
bered Estates Act passed in 1849 by this House.

Well, Sir, when the two countries had somewhat recovered
from these appalling circumstances, when the earthquake and
the fire had passed, and the still small voice of counsel was
heard, it did appear both to England and Ireland, that if ever
there was an opportunity in which the terrible state that had so
long prevailed might be terminated — when we could prevent its
ever being repeated — that opportunity had arrived. Costly as
may have been the price, great as may have been the sacrifice,
there was, at least, some compensation in the conviction that, so
far as the two countries were concerned, there was, at least, the
opportunity of establishing a system different from that fatal
condition which had, almost for centuries, baffled the devices
of ministers and the noblest aspirations of a great people.
Well, Sir, we can look back upon these events now, after a
sufficient interval, which permits us to calculate with some
accuracy the consequences. So far as the means offered, on
the part of the English ministry, to effect the moral improve-
ment of Ireland, I think it must be admitted there was little
left to be done. For the last twenty years, I might even say
forty years, but certainly since the period of these great disasters
— the policy of the English Government to Ireland has ever
been the same and consistent, whatever party has sat on the
bench opposite. To secure the due administration of justice,
to open to all creeds and to all races the fair career of merit,
to soften, without having recourse to those violent changes
which would alarm the interests, and, perhaps, outrage the
feelings of any considerable part of the Irish people — to soften,
I say, those anomalies which, as yet, prevailed in their social
system — to mitigate and countervail them ; that was the policy
of the English Government, and whoever might form that
Government, whatever party might sit on that bench, I repeat
it, that was the system followed and has for years invariably
prevailed.

That system, indeed, was established and pursued befor
the great calamities which occurred to Ireland in 1848; but
even that system of advancing the moral improvement of

IKISH CHURCH BILL, MAY 1869. 301

Ireland was, in* some degree, assisted by these great calamities.
They had occasioned a great interchange of sympathy between
the two countries, most prominent at the time ; and indeed so
deep, that at the present moment its effects are still felt. An
English minister after the famine, if he brought forward any
measure in this House the object of which was to assist the
social improvement, or by moral means to ameliorate the condi-
tion, of Ireland, experienced less difficulties upon such a subject
than he did before. There was no captiousness, no suspicion ;
on the contrary, both sides exhibited on every occasion even
an eagerness to support a policy of that kind. But, Sir, I
admit that such a policy — a policy which had been pursued
before these calamities — however constantly prosecuted, was
not calculated to produce much effect on the physical condition
of the Irish people. That depended, as I have indicated to the
House, upon material causes.

Well, now, in that respect, what has happened to the Irish
people since that time ? I say we have the advantage of
twenty years' experience to form an opinion as to the altera-
tions in their condition which have occurred since their great
calamity. In the first place their most considerable industry
has been completely reorganised on conditions highly favour-
able to the labourers on the soil. I will not enter into any
controversy now as to the degree to which agricultural wages
have increased in Ireland, but gentlemen will admit that
the increase has been considerable. If I were to refer to
documents on our table, if I were to adduce the evidence of
Bishop Doyle, if I were to go to a period much nearer —
namely, the Reports of the Commissioners previous to the
introduction of the Poor Law into Ireland — I could make
statements to the House which would show, I think, that the
increase of wages to agricultural labour in Ireland has been
very considerable indeed. But I am not anxious to enter into
a subject on which controversy might arise. I will say, there-
fore, that we may fairly assume that agricultural wages of
labour in Ireland have probably doubled ; but what is a much
more important consideration in respect to wages in Ireland,
is that for the first time in that country you have had a system

302 SPEECHES OF THE EARL OF BEACOXSFIELD.

of continuous labour ; and, instead of 600,000 families which
were not employed for more than twenty weeks in the year,
you have the population employed not only at an increase of
wages, but also in continuous labour. That is a most impor-
tant fact as evidence of the amelioration in the condition of
the people.

I will not enlarge on the circumstance that capital has
been introduced into Ireland, and has been applied to the
encouragement of manufactures ; because, though that is an
important consideration, the application of such capital is
an advantage which must necessarily be the slowest realised.
It is, however, undoubted, for we have evidence of the fact,
that capital from England and Scotland has been applied to
manufactures in Ireland during the last twenty years ; but
what is of greater moment in the condition of the people of
Ireland, is that the trade of Ireland has been immensely in-
creased during the same period ; that the increase in the means
of employing and enriching the people of that country by trade
has probably been greater than, but certainly equal to, the im-
provement in the condition of the agricultural labouring classes.
We know from the returns relating to shipping that the tonnage
of Ireland has not merely doubled, but trebled, and in some
parts quadrupled ; and the increase of tonnage has not been
confined to one or two parts, but has pervaded the whole
country.

What, then, has been the general result of all these
causes, so far as the condition of the people is concerned ?
The result is that there has disappeared from the country
these 2,000,000 of hopeless paupers, whose existence there was
a source of disturbance and discontent. I know that there
are some who say that, though these statistical results cannot be
fully denied, a great calamity has happened to Ireland in the
reduction of its population. I have never been one of those
who looked on the reduction of the population of Ireland as an
advantage. I entirely agree with what was said by the late
Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, the Duke of Abercorn, that you
must take Ireland as you find it, with all its existing circum-
stances— its tenure of the land and its population— and yoi

IKISH CHITECH BILL, MAY 1869. 303

must endeavour to govern Ireland with reference to those
existing circumstances, and not with reference to abstract prin-
ciples of political economy. I myself deplore the reduction in
the population of Ireland, because I feel that the condition of
the United Kingdom cannot be maintained in the scale of
nations, unless it realises a certain amount of population ; and,
so far as I can form an opinion, that amount of population
cannot be secured with a reduced contribution from Ireland.
Therefore I look forward to the time when we shall see the
population of Ireland increase from its increased resources,
and reach again the point from which it was diminished, not in
consequence of legislation, but from causes over which legisla-
tion had no control.

Well, such as I have described was the state of Ireland
when the Fenian conspiracy broke out. We had had a revolu-
tion in Ireland — a revolution not brought about by human
means ; the condition of the country was entirely changed, and
the cause of disturbance and discontent had disappeared. The
country was recovering, was more than recovering — it had
recovered, it was in a state of progressive improvement ; the
people were better fed and clothed, and, as the last step in the
improvement of their condition, they were beginning to be
better housed. The wealth of the country had immensely in-
creased. Before the famine the stock of Ireland was worth
little more than 20,000,OOOL, and by the last Keturn it was
estimated at 50,000,000?. Simultaneously with that increase
there has been an increase in the arable cultivation of the
country. Therefore, the allegation that the increase of wealth
has been increased by changing the system of cultivating the
soil and diminishing the amount of human labour, has no foun-
dation. Such was the condition of things when the Fenian
conspiracy broke out ; and I say that upon a right appreciation
of the character of the Fenian conspiracy, depends the question
whether the policy of the right honourable gentleman at the
head of the Government is a wise, just, and necessary policy,
or whether we may not be pursuing a policy most dangerous
and fatal to this country.

We approach this subject under some advantages. I can

304 SPEECHES OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD.

say for myself that I can consider it without prejudice or
passion. The Fenian conspiracy did not commence when I
and my colleagues were responsible for the government of the
country. It had already broken out, or I dare say that there
might have been some impartial critics on public affairs who
would have alleged that that conspiracy broke out in conse-
quence of our policy. We inherited the conspiracy- from
our predecessors, but I am the first to acknowledge that the
policy of our predecessors was not accountable for that event.
However, I and my colleagues had to bear the brunt of
that conspiracy, and even our opponents have generously and
fairly admitted that we put it down with firmness and yet
with moderation. Therefore, having no passion or prejudice on
the subject, I can express my opinion as to the character and
cause of the Fenian conspiracy with little fear of being mis-
understood. I had the opportunity of making myself well
informed on the subj ect. Honourable gentlemen know now a great
deal about it ; but something never will be known except by
those who at that moment incurred the responsibilities of con-
ducting affairs; and I will express my conviction that the
Fenian conspiracy was an entirely foreign conspiracy. I do not
by that mean to say it was a merely American conspiracy. It
did not arise from Ireland, and it was supported from Ireland
very slightly. The whole plan and all the resources came from
abroad, and the people of Ireland, as a people, repudiated that
conspiracy. From the commencement the persons who got up
the conspiracy — the originators and abettors of it — were per-
sons influenced by obsolete traditions as to the condition of
Ireland, and the temper of the Irish people, and when they
applied their preparations to Ireland they found out the great
mistake they had made, in assuming that they were dealing with
Ireland as it was at the commencement of the century.

No doubt there are people in Ireland who will at all times
sympathise with a political movement of any kind. A very lively
people, with not too much to do, and little variety of pursuit,
will always have among them a class of persons ready to busy
themselves with any mischief that is going on. There is a
certain class in Ireland who are in the habit of saying wh at

IRISH CHUKCH BILL, MAY 1869. 305

they do not mean, and of doing that which they never intended.
But no class of any importance, no individuals of any import-
ance, ever sanctioned the Fenian movement : they repudiated
it ; they felt that it was an anachronism, that it originated in
obsolete traditions, and was devised by people who were per-
fectly unaware that the Ireland upon which they were operating
was the Ireland in which there had been the portentous revolu-
tion I have referred to. If this view be correct, I say that the
inference I have a right to draw is this — that the Fenian con-
spiracy having been completely baffled, having been met — I
hope I may be allowed to say with courage and wisdom — and
having been completely put down, it ought to have been
allowed to pass away, and that the improvement in the condition
of Ireland ought to have been permitted to proceed ; so that in
the course of time, in another ten, or even twenty years — and
what are twenty years in the history of a very ancient nation
like Ireland, and a nation which has passed through such
vicissitudes? — we had a right to believe that Ireland would
have been in much the same condition as England or Scotland.
But the right honourable gentleman took a different view.
The Government said, in effect — ' The Fenian conspiracy is a
.national conspiracy. Because of the Fenian movement, we say
that the whole or that a great body of the Irish people are
dissatisfied and discontented with the English Government, and
what therefore must we do ? Why, we must rescind the whole
policy of conciliation carried on for thirty or forty years.' This
is the keystone of the right honourable gentleman's policy,
that I am now touching upon. The Government, I say de-
clared— ' We must throw aside all the material conclusions that
have resulted from the portentous events that occurred in
Ireland, and that did not result from human legislation. Never
mind the lesson of the famine. Never mind the lesson which
emigration has taught you. Never mind all the steps which,
in consequence, you were then obliged to take in this country.
The Fenian conspiracy proves to us that the whole nation is
disaffected. We must rescind the policy of this country, and
we must have instead a policy of great change and great dis-
turbance,'— for you cannot have great change without great

VOL. II. X

306 SPEECHES OF THE EAKL OF BEACONSFIELD.

disturbance. I say that the whole question, whether the policy
of the Government — the gigantic issue which the right honour-
able gentleman has raised — is a wise or a fatal policy, entirely
depends upon the right appreciation of the Fenian movement.

The right honourable gentleman says — ' This is a proof of
general and national discontent. There must therefore be a
complete revolution ; ' and we have before us the first proposi-
tion of the right honourable gentleman. Now, what is this
first proposition ? The Bill we are asked to read a third time
is a Bill to abolish the Protestant Church in Ireland, and to
confiscate its property. I will not repeat the general objections
to that policy. On the third reading of the Bill, and when we
wish to secure a division, we ought to avoid any repetition of
arguments. I will not then do more than remind the House that
it is a change in the Constitution of England ; that this is, as the
right honourable gentleman and his friend have announced, a
revolutionary measure. I will not enlarge on what I myself
deeply feel — that it weakens the character of the civil power by
divorcing it from the religious principle which has hitherto
strengthened and consecrated it. I will not touch upon what
is quite unnecessary to mention — that this is not a measure
which will increase the confidence in property in this country.
I say willingly that I am myself prepared, if necessary, to con-
sider all these contingencies — to consider whether it ought not
to be our duty to adopt a policy involving a change in the
Constitution, which is avowed by those who bring it forward as
a revolutionary policy, which endangers and weakens property,
which may damage to the last degree the very character of
civil authority, by divesting it of any connection with religion
— all these contingencies, I repeat, I am prepared to consider,
and, if necessary, to accept, if the supreme safety of the State
requires it.

But I say that we have at least a right to ask Her Majesty's
Government that we should have proofs of that necessity.
What I want to ask the House on this occasion is — prepared,
as I assume the majority of the House is, to embrace all
these large and violent propositions — Have we received from
the Government adequate evidence to prove the necessity

IRISH CHURCH BILL, MAY 1869. 307

— have we received any evidence ? I want to know that.
Ireland is discontented again, Ireland is disturbed again, there
is one remedy for that discontent and that disturbance ; it is
the abolition of the Protestant Church, and the confiscation of
its revenues. Have we evidence that if we abolish that Church
and confiscate its revenues, we shall render Ireland contented
and tranquil ? Sir, so far as I can form an opinion, that evi-
dence does not exist. I receive myself a great many letters
every day upon the state of Ireland. We have heard from an
honourable gentleman (Sir Greorge Jenkinson) during these
recent debates, how much he was applied to in a similar manner.
I do not know whether his correspondence exceeds mine, but
mine is of two kinds ; I have a correspondence from laymen,
even from ladies. Though you may smile, if I read some
of these letters to the House you would find that they are
of a harrowing character. There are letters from Irishmen
and Irishwomen, describing a state of affairs which would
make every countenance serious that heard them. The writers
are extremely alarmed about the lawless state of their country,
and I am not in a position to relieve or remove their alarm.
But I also receive a great many letters from clergymen of the
Established Church in Ireland, and they are also alarming —
but their alarm is of a different character. These clergymen
are only alarmed at the conduct of Her Majesty's Gfovern-
nient. They are not at all alarmed at the state of the country.
Some of those clergymen live in Tipperary, and some of them
in Westmeath ; but not one of them tells me that he is in
danger — that his life is menaced, or that he is under the
least apprehension of offence or personal attack from his Irish
fellow-countrymen. Though almost every week we have ac-
counts of outrages in Ireland, I have not heard that any clergy-
man of the Established Church has been a victim. No Irish
clergyman of my acquaintance has ever alluded to disturb-
ance.

Then, I say, what is the evidence, that, if we abolish the Irish
Church and confiscate its resources, we shall cause any diminu-
tion of the discontent and disturbance which prevail among a
portion of the Irish people, inasmuch as it does not appear

x 2

308 SPEECHES OF THE EAEL OF BEACONSFIELD.

that the discontent and disturbance arise from any of the
accidents of the Irish Church ? Surely, if it were true that
the abolition of the Church and the confiscation of its property
would be sufficient to remove that discontent and disturbance
we should have some evidence of the fact in assaults on
the persons of the clergy. (A laugh.) Will the honourable
gentleman who laughs be good enough to explain why it is
that the landlord should be assassinated while the clergyman is
left unharmed ? If the persons who commit these outrages are
discontented with the landlord or with the class to which he
belongs, and prove their discontent in the manner that has
lately been exhibited, why should they not assault the clergy-
man if they are discontented with him or with the class to
which he belongs ? But, on the contrary, the clergyman is
in a state of complete security ; he makes no complaint of the
circumstances of the locality in which he passes his existence,
and, so far as his letters are concerned, you would not even
suppose' that his country was disturbed.

I again ask, then, what evidence have we that if we have
recourse to this violent remedy we shall effect the cure for
which it is brought forward? But in itself the objections to
it are very considerable, totally irrespective of those general
ones to which I have alluded. If the right honourable gen-
tleman had proposed to confiscate the property of the Irish
Protestant Church and transfer it to the Koman Catholic
Church, though I should consider that an unjust and unwise
measure, it would be an intelligible proposition. It would be
a proposition for which arguments could be offered, and which
at least would be consistent with the principle of property.
But what does the right honourable gentleman say? 'I
propose to confiscate the property of the Protestant Church,
because the Eoman Catholic Church is discontented.' What
does that amount to ? To a recognition of the principles of
Socialism. A man comes forward and says — ' I am a poor-man,
and I am discontented because another man has an estate
and a park. I do not want his estate and his park, because
I know that every man cannot expect to have an estate and a
park, but take them away from that other man, and my political

IRISH CHURCH- BILL, MAY 1869. 309

views are met.' Well, that is Socialism, and it is the policy
which Her Majesty's Ministers now propose to adopt.

What I wish to impress upon the House is this — we
have no evidence whatever to justify or even to colour the
great changes which are proposed. Let us see what will be the
first effect of this revolution. It must produce this effect — it
will outrage the feelings of a considerable portion, though not
the majority, of the people of Ireland, because I am not at all
prepared to admit that there are two nations in Ireland. I
look upon the Irish nation as one people. For the last forty
years they have been a homogeneous people. If we go into
an analysis of the elements of a nation, in the way which has
been attempted in this debate, I am not sure that we shall be
able to prove that the English people are so homogeneous as
political philosophy now requires a people to be. I treat the
Irish as one nation, and I think all must admit that the course
we are pursuing must outrage the feelings and sensibly injure
the interest of a considerable portion of that nation. Well,
Sir, that is a break-up of the system of general conciliation
which has been pursued for so many years. You have disorder
and disquiet in Ireland, and you injure those who are tranquil
and not disorderly. You add their discontent to existing dis-
affection. Under what circumstances are you pursuing this
course ? You are pursuing it under these circumstances :
Assuming that the Fenian conspiracy is an absolute proof of the
disaffection of the majority of the Irish nation — which I believe
to be the greatest fallacy in the world — you announce a great
change in your policy, you rescind the ancient policy of conci-
liation, and announce a policy of change and revolution, of
which the first measure is before us, but several other measures
have been promised and announced.

I will not dwell in any detail upon them now, but it is
impossible to forget, when we are considering the wisdom of
your present proposition, that you have held out expectations
to the great portion of the people of Ireland respecting the
tenure of land. I am not going to make quotations from the
speeches of honourable gentlemen opposite, which is never
my way, but I must refer to them when they affect the public-

310 SPEECHES OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD.

conduct of their party. There is no doubt you have selected
this time to announce your policy upon' subjects scarcely less
important, perhaps quite as important as the Irish Church. The
right honourable gentleman the Secretary of State for the
Home Department, the minister l peculiarly charged with the
maintenance of peace and tranquillity in Ireland, has publicly
denounced the ( infernal land laws ' of that country. (Mr. Bruce
denied having used the words.) The statement has been made
in this House, and the right honourable gentleman did not then
take the opportunity of making the explanation which he
probably will at a future period. Whether the right honourable
gentleman did or did not make that declaration is at present of
little importance, but that the great portion of the Irish believe
that he made it is of the utmost importance. Why was it
passed over in silence ? What was the effect of that declara-
tion ? Why, Captain Rock came out of his retirement directly ;
again we found Molly Maguire waving her bonnet, and Lady
Clare paying evening visits to the landlords and farmers of
Ireland. It is all very well for the right honourable gentleman
to tell me in a half-whisper across the table that he intends to
deny it, but he cannot forget that this passage in his speech
was read in this House a month ago, and that he did not
then make the denial. (Mr. Bruce : There was nothing in the
speech about * infernal land laws.')

Perhaps it was landlords. I am never anxious to twit my
opponents with their speeches, and I did not bring the extract
with me, but I will send it to the right honourable gentleman.
But I say you have at this moment unfortunately produced
every possible element that can be devised to disturb Ireland.
It is not merely that you propose this great measure of abolish-
ing the Church, which at once enlists against you the feelings,
as is now proved, of 1,500,000 of the population of that country
— because it cannot be estimated by those who are in formal
communion with that Church — but, whether you are guiltless or
not, you have so contrived it that you have conveyed the
impression to the great portion of the Irish people — who
apparently were very content, who were gaining higher wages
1 Mr. Bruce, afterwards Lord Aberdare.

IKISH CHURCH BILL, MAY ?869. 311

than they did twenty-five years ago, and who were continuously
employed — the impression that a great revolution is about to
take place in the tenure of land. I do not dwell on the subject
of education, because it has not produced any agitation at
present. The Eoman Catholic Church on the subject of educa-
tion waits in grim repose.

This is quite clear that we have now before us — whether it
was necessary or not is another question — instead of an Ireland
that was at least tranquil — that in my mind was essentially
progressive in its improvement, that was not in any way
connected with originating the Fenian movement — you have
an Ireland now which you must be prepared to witness as the
scene of disturbance — perhaps of disaster. What will be the
natural consequence ? What is the state of affairs we must
prepare ourselves for if Ireland be the scene of great disturb-
ances ? For you not only hare one body of the population
agitating for a revolution in the land tenure, and another — and
a most influential body — holding back from a Government
which they think has betrayed them with respect to the insti-
tution most dear to their feelings and most prized by them. I
say, amid all this distraction and disorder there will be one
power and one body that will not be disordered and dis-
tracted. There is one power in that country where you are
preparing such elements of disturbance which is organised and
disciplined with a powerful tradition, and which is acting under
the authority and command of a supreme and sovereign central
power. Now, I am not one of those who wish to create un-
necessary alarm about the power of the Papacy. There are
philosophers opposite who of course despise the power of the
Papacy. But I am not speaking on this subject as a philoso-
pher, nor, I hope, as a bigot ; I am speaking as a member of Par-
liament looking to public affairs, looking to what I think will be
the consequence of the conduct of the ministers of this country,
and endeavouring to contemplate the means by which we may
have to counteract those consequences. I do not blame the
Papacy if Ireland is in the state of confusion and distraction
that it soon must be if this policy is followed. I do not blame
the Papacy for fulfilling that which their convictions must

312 SPEECHES OF THE EAEL OF BEACONSFIELD.

make their highest duty. One's ordinary knowledge of
human nature convinces us of this — that if men are abler than
others, if they have the advantage of discipline and organisa-
tion, when all others are undisciplined and disordered, when
everything is confusion, when everyone is discontented, when
you have Captain Kock among the peasantry, and when you
have the Protestants of Ireland feeling, as they will feel,
betrayed and deserted, they will take advantage of such a state
of things in order to advance the opinions which they con-
scientiously say are the right ones, and avail themselves in such
circumstances of the discipline and order which they command.

You are encountering under those circumstances a foe with
which you will find it very difficult to compete ; and to laugh at
such possible contingencies, at such highly probable contingen-
cies, may do very well for the course of this debate ; but what
will be our condition when these almost certain results
happen, and when you, if you sit in Parliament at that time,
will be called on to devise means to counteract and to prevent a
consummation of consequences which hitherto have been
conceived and held in this country to be fatal to our liberties ?
I say, Sir, it cannot be for a moment — it ought not for a
moment to be concealed from ourselves, that the policy of Borne,
when we give every inducement and encouragement to that
policy, will be to convert Ireland into a Popish kingdom. It
will not only be her policy, it will be her duty. Then you will
understand what she means with regard to the Established
Churches; then you will understand what she means with
regard to national education ; then you will understand what
that great system is which hitherto has been checked and
controlled by the- Sovereign of this country, but in a manner
which has never violated the rights and the legal liberties of
one Roman Catholic fellow-subject.

But you will now by this policy have forced and encouraged
Rome to adopt a line different from that which hitherto she
has pursued. What will happen ? Is it probable that the
Protestants of Ireland will submit to such a state of affairs
without a struggle ? Who can believe it ? They will not.
They never will submit to the establishment of Papal ascend-

IRISH CHURCH BILL, MAY 1869. 313-

ency in Ireland without a struggle. How can you suppose it ?
How is it to be prevented ? It may occur, probably, when the
union between the two countries which is to be partially
dissolved to-night may be completely dissolved ; for it is very
possible that, after a period of great disquietude, doubt, and
passion, events may occur which may complete that severance
of the union which to-night we are commencing.1 But what of
that ? I do not suppose that if there were a struggle between
the Eoman Catholics and the Protestants of Ireland to-morrow,
even the right honourable President of the Board of Trade,2 or
the most fanatic champion of non-interference, can suppose
England would be indifferent. What I fear in the policy of
the right honourable gentleman is that its tendency is to
civil war.

I am not surprised that honourable gentlemen should
for a moment be startled by such an expression. Let them
think a little. Is it natural and probable that the Papal power
in Ireland will attempt to attain ascendency and predominance ? '
I say it is natural ; and, what is more, it ought to do it. Is. it
natural that the Protestants of Ireland should submit without
a struggle to such a state of things ? You know they will not ;
that is settled. Is England to interfere ? Are we again to
conquer Ireland ? Are we to have a repetition of the direful
history which on both sides now we wish to forget ? Is there to
be another battle of the Boyne, another siege of Derry, another
Treaty of Limerick ? These things are not only possible, but
probable. You are commencing a policy which will inevitably
lead to such results. It was because we thought the policy of"
the right honourable gentleman would lead to such results
that we opposed it on principle ; but when- the House by a
commanding majority resolved that the policy should be
adopted, we did not think it consistent with our duty to retire
from the great business before us, and endeavoured to devise
amendments to this Bill, which I do not say would have
effected our purpose, but which at least might have softened
the feelings, spared the interests, and saved the honour of those
who were attacked by the Bill. In considering these amend—
1 Prophetic. * Mr. Bright.

314 SPEECHES OF THE EAKL OF BEACONSFIELD.

ments we were most scrupulous to propose nothing that could
counteract and defeat the main principles of the policy of the
right honourable gentleman. We felt that to do so would be
to trifle with the House ; would not be what was due to the
right honourable gentleman, and could not effect the purpose
we had before us. There was not an amendment which, on the
part of my friends, I placed on the table, that was not scrupu-
lously drawn up with this consideration ; there was not one of
those amendments which, in my opinion, the right honourable
gentleman might not have accepted, and yet have carried his
main policy into effect. What the effect of carrying these amend-
ments might have been, I pretend not now to say ; but at least,
if they had been carried, or if the right honourable gentleman
himself had modified his Bill in unison with their spirit, there
was a chance of our coming to some conclusion which would
have given some hope for the future.

I ask the House to recollect at this moment the tone and
spirit in which these amendments were received. Rash in its
conception, in its execution arrogant, the policy of the right
honourable gentleman, while it has secured the triumph of a
party, has outraged the feelings of a nation. If the right
honourable gentleman had met us in the spirit in which we
met him, at any rate we should have shown the Protestants
of Ireland that, whatever might be the opinion of the majority
upon the State necessity of the policy of the Government, there
was a desire in Parliament to administer it in a spirit of con-
ciliation towards those who, as all must acknowledge, are placed
in a position of almost unexampled difficulty and pain. But
not the slightest encouragement was given to us, no advance
on our part was ever accepted by the right honourable gentle-
man who has insisted upon the hard principle of his measure,
and it has become my duty upon this, the last day, to comment
upon the character of that principle, and the possible con-
sequences of its adoption. I know very well the difficult
position in which we are placed to-night. I know very well it
would be more convenient if we did not ask for the opinion of
the House to-night, and allow this third reading to pass un-
challenged ; but I confess I could not reconcile that course with

IKISH CHUKCH BILL, MAY 1869. 315

my sense of public duty. If this Bill be what I believe it to
be, it is one which we ought to protest against to the last, and
we cannot protest against it in a manner more constitutional,
more Parliamentary, more satisfactory to our constituencies and
to the nation than by going to a vote upon it.

We know very well you will have a great party triumph,
a huge majority, and we shall have what is called ' loud
and continued cheering.' But remember this, that when
Benjamin Franklin's mission was rejected there was loud and
continued cheering, and Lords of the Privy Council waved
their hats and tossed them in the air; but that was the
commencement of one of the greatest struggles this country
ever embarked in ; it was the commencement of a series of the
greatest disasters England ever experienced. And I would
recommend the House to feel at this moment that this is not
a question like the paper duty, not a party division upon some
colonial squabble ; we are going, if we agree to this Bill to-
night, so far as the House of Commons is concerned, to give a
vote which will be the most responsible public act that any
man on either side of the House ever gave. You may have a
great majority now, you may cheer, you may indulge in all the
jubilation of party triumph ; but this is a question as yet only
begun, and the time will come, and come ere long, when those
who have taken a part in the proceedings of this House this
night, whatever may be their course and whatever their decision,
will look upon it as one of the gravest incidents of their lives,
as the most serious scene at which they have ever assisted. I
hope when that time shall come, none of us on either side of
the House will feel that he has by his vote contributed to the
disaster of his country.

316 SPEECHES OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD.

SPEECH ON ADDRESS, February 8, 1870.

[At the meeting of Parliament in 1870, the condition of Ireland
•was so bad that it hardly seemed possible that it could be worse.
Disestablishment had stimulated lawlessness ; and the situation wa&
in fact almost parallel to what we witness at the present moment.]

ME. DISRAELI : Mr. Speaker,— The Speech from the Throne
promises the introduction of many important measures,
but I think, Sir, this is hardly an occasion when it would be
convenient to the House that we should enter into any general
criticism upon them. I will, therefore, only express a hope
that when those measures are brought forward we shall find they
are treated by Her Majesty's Grovernment in a manner not un-
worthy of their importance. Nor, indeed, should I have ven-
tured to trouble the House at all to-night, had it not been for
some passages towards the end of the Speech which refer to
the condition of Ireland. Those passages, I confess, appear ta
me to be neither adequate nor altogether accurate. Her
Majesty's Grovernment acknowledge that the condition of
Ireland is not at all satisfactory ; but, while admitting it is bad,,
they remind us that on previous occasions it has been worse.
They tell us that they have employed freely the means at their
command for the prevention of outrage — a statement which the
House must have heard with satisfaction from so authoritative
a quarter, because certainly the popular and general impression
was to the contrary. As I understand the language, which to
me seems involved, and certainly is ambiguous, the Grovernment
inform us that, contingent upon their passing certain measures,,
they will resume the duty of a Grovernment, and protect life
and property. I confess I am sorry to see in a document of
this imperial character that any body of men who are responsible

SPEECH ON ADDRESS, FEBRUARY 1870. 317

ministers of the Crown are of opinion that to protect the life
and property of Her Majesty's subjects is a contingent duty.

Now, with respect to the condition of Ireland, and why I
think this notice of it by Her Majesty's Government is neither
adequate nor accurate. Unquestionably before this we have
had murders in Ireland, and assassinations and mutilations, and
violence in all its multifarious forms — threatening notices,
secret societies, turbulent meetings, and a seditious press. All
this has happened before. But on all previous occasions when
such disorders have pervaded that country reasons have been
alleged, and if not universally, have' been generally adopted by
influential persons in the country as explanatory of their occur-
rence. I remember, Sir, that when I first came into Parlia-
ment— thirty years ago now, and something more I am sorry
to say — the state of Ireland was most unsatisfactory ; and then
it was commonly alleged that it was in a great degree to be
attributed to what was called the maladministration of justice,
and the conduct of high persons on the judicial bench was im-
pugned and defended in this House, and recriminations were
indulged in with all the animosity of party conflict. Well, no
one can pretend now that the scenes of outrage which extend
over a considerable portion of Ireland can be attributed to the
maladministration of justice. For the last ten years — I may
say twenty and even more — the administration of justice in
Ireland has been as just, as pure, and as learned as in this
country ; and I say this, well knowing that those who sit upon
the bench in Ireland have, in the majority of cases, been
appointed by the party opposite, and that most of them are
members of the Koman Catholic community. Generally speak-
ing, too, if you take also a large view of the conduct of juries
in Ireland, particularly under the trying circumstances of the
last few years, the law has been vindicated by them with courage
and loyalty. Maladministration of justice, then, cannot be
alleged to-day as the cause of the crime and outrage which
prevail in Ireland at this moment. Another cause which used
to be alleged was religious dissension. People said — ' What can
you expect from a country where you allow the minority of the
people great privileges in respect of their religion, and permit

318 SPEECHES OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD.

ecclesiastical inequalities to exist ? Put an end to the Protestant
ascendency which you support with so much zeal, and you will
put an end to these disorders.'

Keligious dissension was very generally received as the cause
of the disorders and disturbances of Ireland; but that plea
cannot be urged now. The Protestant population of Ireland
now possess no exclusive privileges, their church has been
despoiled and her prelates have been degraded. You have
established certainly in theory ecclesiastical equality, though I
fear in practice it will be found that those who were lately in
possession of those privileges will hardly rise to the level of
those who are now considered in theory their equals. But no
one can any longer say that it is Protestant ascendency which
is the cause of these horrible disorders. Well, during the long
discussions which have occurred in this House now for so many
years a third reason has been frequently alleged as the true
cause of the disturbed state of Ireland, and that was a seditious
priesthood. Now, I am not going to maintain that things have
not been said and things have not been done by isolated mem-
bers of the Roman Catholic priesthood of late, which every man
of sense and honour on both sides of the House must reprobate ;
but we know that the great body of the priesthood is arrayed
in support of Her Majesty's Government, and therefore it
cannot be alleged that a seditious priesthood is the cause of
Ireland's trouble. The Roman Catholic congregations are ex-
horted from the altar to uphold the ministry of the right
honourable gentleman, and I am told that even amid the per-
plexities of the oecumenical councils, right reverend prelates
have found time and opportunity to despatch canvassing letters
to the hustings of Longford and Tipperary.

Then we have sometimes been told that all those outrageous
occurrences which periodically happen in Ireland are solely
occasioned by an organised system of agitation conducted by
individuals who made agitation profitable. * Get rid of agita-
tors,' we were told, ' and you will soon find Ireland tranquil and
content.' That appears to have been the opinion of a right
honourable gentleman who is a member of the administration ;
for I observed that in addressing his constituents lately h(

SPEECH ON ADDRESS, FEBRUARY 1870. 31 9-

informed them that the condition of Ireland at this moment, in
respect of all its crimes and outrages, was the consequence of
the desperate condition of the Irish agitators. He told them
that these mischievous men are up in arms because they know
a ministry is now in office which is resolved to carry measures
to put an end to their profession ; and he admitted, with his
characteristic candour, that if there had not been a change of
Government it is not all impossible that the agitators, inter-
ested in always maintaining a grievance, would have permitted
Ireland, under the late administration, to be tranquil and
content. Now, I must say, it strikes me as the most remark-
able circumstance in the present condition of Ireland, that she
is agitated without agitators. Of course at such a critical
period like the present a good many of the old hands have
appeared, and there is no doubt they thought the time was
come when, to use a classical Liberal expression, they could carry
on a ' roaring trade ' in the way of agitation. But the most
curious thing I have observed in the course of events in Ireland
during the last twelve months is that the agitators, mean- in
station, not very distinguished in ability, have invariably con-
trived to be on the unpopular side. Although the state of
Ireland has been such that, now for a considerable period, once
in every week some deplorable outrage has been perpetrated, I
must do the agitators the justice to say that, in my opinion,
none of these acts can be fairly ascribed to them.

Again, all must agree that there have been moments in the
history of Ireland when disorders and disturbances there could
be traced and attributed to the influence of a foreign country.
Notably at the beginning of this century — or, probably to speak
with greater accuracy, I ought to say at the end of the last
century — there were Irish traitors residing in France, in direct
alliance with the French Republic, who threatened and did
certainly accomplish the invasion of Ireland ; and this foreign
influence was undoubtedly the main cause of the disturbances
in Ireland. And recently, within our own immediate ex-
perience, some of our Irish fellow-countrymen, who are
alienated in feeling and sentiment, have, in another republic —
the republic of America — by peculiar means exercised a foreign

320 SPEECHES OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD.

and disturbing influence upon Ireland. We should be, I think,
glad to admit, and proud to remember, that the same thing can
never be said of the American republic which was justly said of
the French Government — that they ever for a moment
•tolerated, sanctioned, or encouraged the Fenian conspiracy. 1
speak of course only so far as my own experience extends ; but
to that extent, I say that the conduct of the American Govern-
ment was marked by a spirit of honour and political integrity.
But, no doubt, the Irish in America have had the means of
founding associations and of acting on the opinions of the
population of Ireland. Accordingly, there is no doubt that in
these two instances foreign influence produced these disorders.
Now with regard to the Fenian conspiracy which some little
time ago was alleged as the cause of these disturbances, I must
express my own opinion — I have expressed that opinion before,
and its accuracy has been challenged ; but at least, it is an
opinion formed after considerable thought, with some responsi-
bility, and with some means of arriving at an adequate conclu-
sion. And the opinion which I so expressed was that the
Fenian conspiracy was of foreign growth. Under the Govern-
ment of the Duke of Abercorn, that conspiracy was in my
•opinion completely broken and baffled.

That happened in America which happened in Europe
after the Thirty Years' War. In America, as in Germany, the
majority of the people, on both sides of the important ques-
tions then at issue, were actuated by high principles. But
'there were naturally a great number of military adventurers
who mingled in the fray, and who, when peace was unex-
pectedly brought about, wished to employ their military know-
ledge and experience to some purpose. And the Irish, who
are a military nation, had in the American army a great many
of their race. But it is an error to suppose that the scheme
of invading Ireland and establishing a republic in that country
was confined to Irishmen. If the projected Fenian army had
taken the field, the commander, and, I believe the second in
=command, would neither of them been Irishmen, nor, so far as
I am informed, Roman Catholics. The result of that con-
spiracy was that, baffled in every way, with all their schemes

SPEECH ON ADDRESS, FEBKUARY 1870. 321

thwarted, they found, when they came really to the pinch of
the question, that both parties to the plot had been deceived.
The military adventurers could not count, as they had been
led to believe they could do, upon an armed nation rising to
receive them ; and that part of the Irish nation which sympa-
thised with the conspiracy was disappointed at the inadequate
means with which these great intentions were proposed to be
accomplished. Hence between the two parties there arose
feelings of suspicion and disgust. And, notwithstanding all
that we have heard, I do not believe that there is any reason
for now tracing the disordered state of Ireland to Fenian
machinations. I have ventured to mention five causes which,
during many years, have been brought forward as accounting
for the disorders and disturbances which periodically occur in
Ireland ; and I say that they are all obsolete or non-existing
as regards the present state of affairs.

There is, I admit, a sixth and a final cause which must be
noticed, which has been alleged on previous occasions — and
that is the tenure of land. The tenure of land is also now
mentioned as the cause of the discontent and dissatisfaction of
Ireland ; but the tenure of land in Ireland is the same as it
was at the Union, except that it has been modified in some
degree, and always to the advantage of the occupier. At
any rate the tenure of land is the same now as it was when
Lord Carlisle governed Ireland, and it must be the same as
when the Duke of Abercorn governed Ireland. But the tenure
then did not produce these scenes of disorder and outrage
which have excited the fears and attention of the whole nation
for a year, and which are now mentioned in Her Majesty's
Speech. It seems that has happened in political affairs which
is said to be impossible in physical affairs — namely, sponta-
neous combustion. The Irish people — that is to say, a great
portion of the Koman Catholic population in Ireland — have
rushed into a riotous hallucination. They have suddenly
assumed that a great change was about to occur in their con-
dition— a change which, if it should be accomplished, would
weaken and perhaps destroy the amount of civilisation which
VOL. II. Y

322 SPEECHES OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD.

they already possess, and which, if carried to its last conse-
quences, would resolve society into its original elements.

I want to know what is the reason that this great portion
of the Irish people has suddenly indulged in the wild dreams
that have led to this wild and evil action ? It cannot be the
policy of the ministry. However we may differ as to the
measures of Her Majesty's Government with respect to Ireland,
there is no doubt that their policy as regards the Koman
Cntholic portion of the population is a conciliatory policy.
Her Majesty's Government announced their intention to re-
dress all the injuries of the Roman Catholic population, to
remove all the abuses of which they have long complained, and
under which they have suffered, and generally to ameliorate
their condition. The announcement of such a policy could
not have brought about the wild and destructive conduct of
which we are now all complaining. The truth seems this —
the Irish people have misinterpreted the policy of the Govern-
ment. They have put a false interpretation on the policy of
the Government ; they have considered that the Government
meant to do something different from that which I assume,
and shall always believe, it is the intention of the Government
to do. But I want to know this : Were the Irish people justi-
fied in the erroneous interpretation which they put on the
avowed policy of the Government ; and if they fell into the
dangerous error of misinterpreting that policy, did the Govern-
ment take all the steps, or any of the steps, that were neces-
sary to remove that false impression and to guide the mind of
the Irish people to a right conception of the state of affairs,
and a due appreciation of the intentions of the Govern-
ment ?

It is unnecessary for me to dilate on the Irish policy of
Her Majesty's Government ; whatever may be its merits in the
opinion of some, or its errors in the opinion of others, there
is one point on which I think we must all agree, that it has
been expressed on the part of Her Majesty's Government with
the utmost frankness and explicitness. The right honourable
gentleman opposite, when he was in a scarcely less responsible
position than the one he now occupies, at a time when he was

SPEECH ON ADDRESS, FEBRUARY 1870. 323

•a candidate for the highest post in the country, challenging
the confidence of his Sovereign and of his country upon his
Irish policy, and speaking, no doubt, with a sense of responsi-
bility not less than that with which he would speak now, told
us what his view of the Irish question, as it was called, really
was. He stated that the state of Ireland was to be attributed
to Protestant ascendency, and that his policy was to put an end
to Protestant ascendency. Nothing could be clearer, more
frank, or more explicit. Protestant ascendency, the right
honourable gentleman said, was at the bottom of all the dis-
orders and all the grievances and misery of Ireland ; it was a
tree which had produced three branches which 1 shall call —
not in the language of the right honourable gentleman, but in
accordance with his meaning — branches of predominant per-
niciousness, extending into the Church, the land, and the
•education of the country. That was the declaration made to
England and to Ireland. England cannot complain of the
conduct of the right honourable gentleman, because that policy
was announced before. The general election, and the vote of
the English constituencies, ratified the determination of the
right honourable gentleman to insure the destruction of Pro-
testant ascendency in Ireland.

But now, what have been the two great causes of excitement
and disorder in Ireland ? There have, no doubt, been several,
but there were two which were prominent last year. One was
a desire to free the political prisoners, and the other a demand
to transfer the property of one class to another class. Those
were really the two great causes. Now, unfortunately, from
some observations made first in the course of debates in this
House, but afterwards dwelt upon and amplified elsewhere, the
public mind, not only of Ireland, but also of England, had
been led to believe that Her Majesty's Government in some
way connected the destruction of the Protestant Church with
the Fenian conspiracy. It was generally understood to be the
opinion of Her Majesty's Government that the Fenian con-
spiracy, if it had not entirely occasioned, at all events pre-
cipitated the fall and decided the fate of the Protestant Church
in Ireland. When the Government of the right honourable

T 2

324 SPEECHES OF THE EAEL OF BEACONSFIELD.

gentleman was formed there was a desire exhibited by that
portion of the Irish people who were then apparently his
supporters — that is, not by those who professed the Protestant
religion, and who viewed the conduct of the right honourable
gentleman with alarm, but by the mass of the Koman Catholic
population of that country — to receive the Government of the
right honourable gentleman with favour ; and they agitated the
country in no unfriendly spirit upon the two subjects I have
named. It is of importance, in clearly understanding the
condition of Ireland at this moment, that the House should
discriminate between the way in which the freedom of the
prisoners, for instance, was advocated in the beginning of the
year by some persons in Ireland, and the mode in which it was
agitated towards the close of the year.

The House will remember that when we assembled last
year a remarkable and dramatic scene took place. The Lord
Mayor and Corporation of Dublin presented themselves at the
bar with a petition to Parliament. In their petition they
requested us to support the church policy of the right honour-
able gentleman — a policy which might be regarded as a foregone
conclusion, and about the success of which, though there might
be some question about the details, there could be no doubt.
But in that petition, couched in a friendly spirit, with the view
of making Her Majesty's Cfovernment popular in Ireland, they
also urged that an amnesty should be granted to the Fenian
prisoners. I have received some Irish deputations in my time,
and I thought I saw at the bar some faces that I recollected.
To be historically correct, I ought to add that the completeness
of their Irish policy was that the Government should purchase
all the Irish railroads and immediately reduce the tariff for
passengers and goods. That was their policy then. The Lord
Mayor and the Corporation of Dublin were the supporters of
Her Majesty's Government. They came in a friendly spirit,
and in asking for an amnesty for the Fenian prisoners they
believed that they were supporting the Government. But
what happened ? No doubt there is no more difficult question
for a minister of a constitutional State to decide than that of
granting an amnesty to political offenders. It is much more

SPEECH ON ADDRESS, FEBRUARY 1870. 325

difficult for a minister of a constitutional State than it is for
the minister of a State where what is known as ' personal rule '
prevails. In such countries there are revolutions, strokes of
State, and other manoeuvres which continually render it neces-
sary that, without much inquiry or discrimination, large bodies
of subjects should be imprisoned ; and as it is of course very
inconvenient to keep thousands of subjects in prison — and
very expensive — when order is restored and tranquillity can be
depended upon, the throwing open of the prison doors and
releasing the prisoners is a convenient way of celebrating the
birthday of the Sovereign or the marriage of his son or
daughter.

But in a constitutional country it is entirely different. A
political prisoner, generally speaking, cannot be imprisoned
without his guilt having been proved to the satisfaction of a
jury of his countrymen ; and even under the rare circumstances
in which a man in a free country may be arrested and im-
prisoned without being condemned by a verdict of a jury, still,
if there be a suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act, it is sus-
pended with the free will of Parliament, and its suspension is
under the vigilance and control not only of Parliament but of
a free press. It may, therefore, be fairly assumed that political
offenders in this country are in a very different position, in
regard both to the merits of their conduct and to the compara-
tive sufferings they endure, from the political prisoners who
by squads and battalions are immured in dungeons in countries
where no constitutional rights are in existence. Therefore, it
is the most difficult of all duties to decide upon the question of
an amnesty in a constitutional country. As a general principle,
though I do not say it is one from which you should never
deviate, an amnesty, if there is to be one, should be complete.
Now, what was the conduct of Her Majesty's Government ?
Her Majesty's Government responded to the friendly invitation
of the Lord Mayor of Dublin, and people of that kind — -I mean
those friends who were, to use a barbarous expression, ' ventila-
ting ' the question, in order to get support and popularity for
the Government — by deciding upon a partial amnesty. Now,
let us see what were the inevitable consequences of a partial

326 SPEECHES OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD.

amnesty. You had a paper placed upon the table last year,
which gives some account of the prisoners who were freed under
the partial amnesty. Now, who were the first three men thus
freed ? Men who had been found guilty of high treason, and
whose sentence of death had been commuted into one of im-
prisonment. With that commutation I am not here to find
fault. Possibly I may myself share its responsibility, but this
I will say — that when the Government of which I was a
member, had to deal with questions of this kind, and we had
to assert the majesty of the law and to establish order and
tranquillity, no one can accuse us of vindictive conduct in the
punishments we retained. Now, the effect of releasing these
three men, who had incurred the severest penalty of the law,
and whose sentence of death had already been commuted to
imprisonment, was that others who had a brother, a son, or a
sweetheart, perhaps, in prison, naturally complained that those
whose conduct had incurred the penalty of death should be
released, while those whose crimes were not so great should
still be detained in prison. On the part of the Government it
was urged that they must exercise some discretion, and that,,
in considering the case of these prisoners, they determined to
free those in whose harmlessness they were pretty confident
and secure, and that none were let out but those who could do
the State no injury.

Well, now, was that the fact ? Look at the next three men
who were let out. They were three men who had incurred
long terms of imprisonment, from twelve to fifteen years, men
of decided opinions and violent conduct, not one of whom had
ever given the slightest sign of penitence. One was an able
writer. He emerged from his cell and immediately wrote a
leading article against the Government, calling upon his fellow- I
countrymen to commence their efforts to free themselves from
the slavery under which they had so long laboured. Another
of them — and that is a mysterious case, which may by and by
be brought under the consideration of Parliament — went to a
banquet and made use of his liberty to excite Irishmen — they
say he was not an Irishman himself — to violence, and he told
them that the sabre was the only solution of their sufferings.

SPEECH ON ADDRESS, FEBRUARY 1870. 327

Well, then, I say the great body of Koman Catholics of Ireland
who had relatives in prison naturally felt indignant. They
regarded this partial amnesty as a most ill-considered act.
These people who before were unhappy in the fate of their
relatives — who no doubt felt that they were unfortunate, and
that they did not deserve their doom — began now to smart
under a great sense of injustice. They said — ' You have let
out men, some sentenced to death, others to long periods of
imprisonment, who immediately use the liberty you have given
them to excite hostility against the Crown and to create sedi-
tion in the country. But our relatives are still immured, who
have not been convicted of offences so heinous, or incurred
sentences so heavy.' Well, what happened ? The feeling for
the Fenian prisoners, which was at first got up rather to assist
the Government than not, became a great national sentiment,
and culminated at last in an incident which has been referred
to with solemnity this evening, an incident most humiliating
to the Government, and stimulating to violence and disturb-
ance, and other classes of crime. The country was raised to a
high degree of excitement when it was most important that it
should be appeased and kept quiet. I said just now that you
must remember this — that the great body of the Koman
Catholic population, without being Fenian themselves, may
justly sympathise with the Fenians.

Let me explain this, for it is important the House
should bear it in mind. The people of Ireland had been told,
now for a great many years, that the Protestant Church in
Ireland was a body of conquest. They had been assured that
it was an enduring testimony of their ignominious position as
a nation, and that though these might not seem its immediate
effects, it was indirectly the cause of all the humiliation and
discontent of the country. Now, when the great body of the
Roman Catholic population found that the badge of conquest
was destroyed, and, at the same time, that it was in consequence
of Fenianism that they were rid of that which they had been
educated to believe a badge of conquest and a source of in-
famy, was it not very natural, without being Fenians them-
selves, that they should evince some sympathy for the Fenian

328 SPEECHES OF THE EAEL OF BEACONSFIELD.

prisoners ? For they naturally reasoned : * It is not necessary
for us to vindicate their conduct in making war on Her
Majesty, of whom we are willing to be the dutiful subjects ;
but we have the highest authority in the land to lead us to
believe that if they had not committed these crimes we should
not have been released from this enduring badge of our servi-
tude and humiliation. And, surely, if ever there was an occa-
sion when bygones should be bygones, it is this, when there
has been a change of Ministry to carry into effect the avowed
consequences of Fenianism.' The people naturally thought
that with the destruction of the Protestant Church the offences
of these men ought to be condoned. That is the reason why
you have such a strong feeling among the Irish people on
behalf of the Fenians, and that is the real cause why you have
had all this terrible excitement in Ireland, and why you have
been called upon to do an act which would be a blow to all
government — namely, without security and on no intelligible
plea suddenly to open the gates of all the prisons of the country
and free men who were condemned by the solemn verdict of
juries, and after trials, the justice and impartiality of which
have certainly never been impugned, even by the Fenians
themselves.

So much for one of the two great causes which have
brought about this condition of Ireland. So far as I can form
an opinion upon the facts as they appear to us, it seems to me
that one of the great causes of the excitement in Ireland, of the
spirit of turbulence, discontent, and disloyalty which have been
rampant during the last twelve months, is to be attributed to
the Government with regard to the Fenian prisoners.

And now let me ask the House to consider the other cause.
The agitation in Ireland has been for two things : to free the
political prisoners, upon which I have already touched ; and in
the second place — it is better to state it in plain language —
virtually to transfer the property of one class to another. Now
let us see what has happened with respect to that. Let us
inquire what excuse, what reason, there is for the erroneous
interpretation which the people of Ireland have put on the
intentionally beneficent policy of the right honourable gentle-

SPEECH ON ADDKESS, FEBKUAEY 1870. 329

man. Now, I apprehend that they reason in this manner : —
The policy of the Government is to put an end to Protestant
ascendency. That there is no mistake about ; we have it on
the highest authority. Then they would go on to say : — ' It is
the cause of all our miseries, but its three most enormous
products are the Protestant Church, the tenure of land, and
the present system of education.' We all know how the right
honourable gentleman has dealt with the Protestant Church.
It was not necessary for the people of Ireland to wait until the
termination of the last session of Parliament to know the
policy of the right honourable gentleman on this subject, be-
cause, at the beginning of the session, the right honourable
gentleman was pledged to the destruction of the Protestant
Church. Therefore, so far as the formation of public opinion
among the Irish people was concerned, from the beginning
of last session they took it as a foregone conclusion, as an
accomplished fact, that the Irish Church was abolished. Well,
they reasoned in this way : — ' The Irish' Church is abolished.
The bishops and rectors are deprived of their property. The
next grievance, according to the same high authority, is the
land. Is it not a natural consequence that if you settle the
question of the Irish Church by depriving the bishops and
rectors of their property, you will settle the question of the
land by depriving the landlords of their property ? I do not
say that this is the policy of the Government ; I do not say
that we thought that was the policy of the Government ; but I
say that it is not an unnatural inference of the Irish people.
I say in the next place that it was the actual inference of the
Irish people.

There could be no mistake about it in Ireland, because a
right honourable gentleman,1 too short a time a member of this
House, now the Master of the Kolls in Ireland, on his appoint-
ment by the new Government to an office which, as far as the
interest of the country was concerned at the particular time, was
second to none — the office of Attorney-General for Ireland — ad-
dressed his constituents,1 and he used these significant terms —
that the Prime Minister would introduce three Bills, one about

1 The Right Honourable E. Sullivan.

330 SPEECHES OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD.

the Church, one about the land, and the third about education ;
and on this declaration of policy he was elected. Therefore,
there is no doubt that the Irish people drew the inference that
the same policy was to apply to the land as to the Church.
Now I will give a proof of that. In 1868 the Irish land question
occupied the attention of the Government, as it had occupied
for some time the attention of successive Governments. There
was a desire, I must say, on the part of those in Ireland who had
been called agitators, and who had been very much abused, to
bring it to some settlement, and they made communications to
the Grovernment. Now I think their plan was — first, utterly
irreconcilable with principle ; secondly, that it would have
ultimately aggravated the evils it was intended to cure. But
throwing these great objections aside for a moment, it was not
an outrageous proposition. Those who had taken the most
active part with regard to the question of the tenure of land in
Ireland, those societies and bodies of farmers attended a meet-
ing which had been convened, and agreed to accept what was
recommended by Mr. Butt — namely, a lease for sixty-three
years, with rents fixed at the Poor Law valuation and twenty
per cent, added, a reassessment to be made at the end of the
term, and the improvements to be then given to the landlord.
I will not enter into the argument now, but I could never have
sanctioned that proposition. But, though it may have been an
unwise one, everybody will admit that it was not a revolutionary
proposition. Well that was in 1868. But the moment the
agitation arose about the Irish Church, or rather at the period
when it was quite clear from the vote of this House that the
Irish Church was doomed, these societies and bodies of farmers
all receded from that engagement. They all said instantly—
* The question has now assumed a totally different aspect ; we
will no longer be bound by the offer that we made ' — and which
I believe they made in all sincerity — and the question entered
into a new phase, until it culminated in the resolution arrived
at by the meeting of Munster farmers when they declared that
nothing short of perpetuity of tenure would be satisfactory.
Well, is it not clearly demonstrated that they did expect that
an analogous policy would be applied to the land to that which

SPEECH ON ADDRESS, FEBRUARY 1870. 331

was applied to the Church ? And I say, was there not ground
for the false interpretation that was put on the policy of the
Grovernment ? And what steps did the Government then take
to remove that false impression ? Why, Sir, we had a discus-
sion on this head last year. I will read a passage, a very short
one, from the speech of a noble Lord, who, for every reason, I
regret is no longer a member of this House. Lord Stanley, on
the 30th of April, 1869, addressing the right honourable
gentleman the First Minister, said this :

' What we want — and it is for that purpose alone I now rise
—is to obtain from the Grovernment a declaration — it need not
be in many words, but I hope they will be plain and distinct -
that, while on the one hand, the claim of the tenants to com-
pensation shall be admitted and respected, the proprietary
rights of the landlords, on the other hand, will be firmly main-
tained. Let them only be firm upon that point — let them only
act upon what I have no doubt is their own view of the subject
— let them only maintain the law calmly and resolutely, and
depend upon it you will get over this agitation, as you have got
over hundreds of similar agitations. But, if everything is to
remain in a state of obscurity until next year, if the Irish
people are left in the dark, if they are left, unchecked and un-
contradicted, to entertain any wild fancies upon this matter that
may float through their minds, then I fear that the present ex-
citement and disturbance will continue, and will even increase ;
and in that case, but in that case only. I will say, that for
what may occur in the next few months the Executive authority
must be held responsible ' (3 ' Hansard,' cxcv. 2001-2).

Lord Stanley sat by me when he made those observations,
and they had my entire assent. They were clear, they were
firm, they were temperate, they were wise. They were made
in April, when there was excitement, disorder in Ireland — when
there had even been some dreadful deeds committed. But,
looking at what, happened at the end of the summer and
throughout the autumn, that period of April was a period of
comparative tranquillity. Now, I ask the House to consider
this question calmly and impartially — Did the Grovernment,
when those wild misconceptions and excitement prevailed in

332 SPEECHES OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD.

the minds of the great body of Irish people, take any step
to enlighten them, to guide them in a right direction, and
to avert the fearful acts which have been their consequence ?
Sir, what happened in Ireland ? Generally speaking, these
farmers of ten acres, those millions of peasants, are naturally
influenced by the example of leading men on these subjects.
What means have these poor people, who scarcely ever see a
newspaper and have nothing at all to guide them, what means
have they of forming an opinion as to the probable course and
intentions of Parliament or of ministers, but by the words and
the conduct of those who are leaders in the society to which
they belong ? Now, I dp not say that Her Majesty's Govern-
ment are responsible for the words or the conduct of the hon-
ourable member for Kilkenny (Sir John Gray). I have no
doubt that honourable gentleman is a perfectly independent
member of Parliament ; and it is not for me for a moment to
insinuate that Her Majesty's Government are responsible for
anything that he says or does. But the people of Ireland know
that the honourable member for Kilkenny has great confidence
in Her Majesty's Government ; he has taken every opportunity
of expressing it. They know well that he took a decided line
on the Irish Church question; they know, or at least they
believe, that if not in confidential, he was in friendly communi-
cation with the Prime Minister on that subject ; and they know
that whenever he spoke on it there was sympathy from official
quarters with his remarks and his general views. They know
very well, moreover, that upon his general views Her Majesty's
Government ultimately acted. I take the honourable member
for Kilkenny to be a fair specimen of an influential and bustling
class of members of Parliament, who are naturally looked up to
by their fellow-countrymen, who think them knowing men and
acquainted with what is going to happen. Well, he attends
meetings, makes speeches, moves resolutions on the land ques-
tion, and speaks with all the authority of a man who was right
on the Irish Church question ; and he says to his hearers : ' We
must be firm ; we are sure to get what we want if we are firm ;
but nothing must satisfy you except fixity of tenure.' Is it,
then, at all surprising that the Irish people should suppose that

SPEECH ON ADDRESS, FEBRUARY 1870. 33S

by the same course as they got rid of the Protestant Church,
of the Protestant bishops and rectors, they will also get rid of
their landlords and obtain fixity of tenure ? But there were
persons of more exalted position, who took a leading part
in the affairs of Ireland during the last year. I am not
going to make the Chief Minister responsible for the con-
duct of a lord lieutenant of a county, who may have his
own views, and may act upon them. He may be independent
and may be imprudent, but a Prime Minister is always in con-
fidential communication with Her Majesty's representatives in
every place ; and if Her Majesty's representative happens to
be not only a Lord Lieutenant of a county, but also a strong
partizan and supporter of the Government, it is quite clear
that a man of the authority of the present Prime Minister need
only give a hint, or order others to give a hint to a Lord
Lieutenant, to prevent any imprudent or violent act on his part..
But what do the Irish people see ? They see a Lord Lieutenant,
a knight of St. Patrick, calling meetings, attending meetings,
making violent speeches — I should say incendiary speeches —
and counselling his audience to call upon the Government to
grant to Ireland fixity of tenure, that is, the transfer of the pro-,
perty of class to another. Well, is it surprising that all these
circumstances should have created in Ireland another and a
second source of great excitement on a subject so much calculated
to quicken the feelings of that people ? In connectipn with
these incendiary speeches, let me, in passing, remind the House
of what happened many years ago with reference to one of the
most respectable members of Parliament, who was held in the
highest personal esteem by both sides of the House. When
Sir William Verner, at an obscure local dinner gave as a toast
* The Battle of the Diamond ' — one of those unhappy conflicts,
as honourable gentlemen are aware, between Roman Catholics
and Protestants in the worst days of Irish history — the matter
was immediately brought before Parliament, and I am not sure
that the Sovereign was not advised to deprive him of some
honours he possessed. I am speaking from memory ; but was
that offence of Sir William Verner — and I would not extenuate
it — more outrageous or more incendiary than the allusion of

334 SPEECHES OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD.

the Queen's representative to ' the glories of Vinegar Hill ? '
Let us see what occurred in Ireland after this to induce the
Irish people to entertain a soberer view of affairs. There were
the elections. If anything can elicit opinion it is an election.

Her Majesty was advised to elevate a non-member of this
House (Colonel Greville Nugent) to the peerage. If blood and
large estate qualify for that great post, I think Her Majesty
was wisely advised ; nor, Sir, as far as I am concerned, do I
object at all to see the son of that noble lord (Captain Greville
Nugent) his successor in this House. But he could not come
into Parliament without expressing the opinions which he came
to support, namely, that he was in favour of a complete am-
nesty for the Fenian prisoners, and for fixity of tenure in
respect to Irish land. Of course Her Majesty's Government
are not responsible for the opinions of independent members
of Parliament ; but as the honourable member for Longford is
not a very old man, the poor people of Ireland may be pardoned
for thinking that he would not be offended if some good advice
had been given him by men in authority. It would not be
unnatural if they said, ' Depend upon it he would not pledge
.himself to the emancipation of the Fenians and to fixity of
tenure (which is the transferring of one man's property to
another) unless he knew what he was about. They made his
father a peer, and he is here to say the right thing.'

That was the Longford election, and I think the circum-
stances to which I have referred were calculated to mislead the
minds of the people. All this time, while the minds of the
people were so much misled, and such a degree of excitement
was added to that which had existed on the subject of the
Fenian prisoners, deeds of outrage, crime, and of infinite
turbulence were perpetrated simultaneously, and I believe as a
necessary consequence of that misleading of the public mind.
But there was another election,1 a very interesting election,
which has been already alluded to, to-night. What happened
at that election ? There was a gentleman 2 who occupied a post
of trust and confidence in the late Whig Administration, of
which the right honourable gentleman opposite (Mr. Glad-
stone) was the organ in this House. If there be any post
1 Tipperary, 2 Mr. Heron, Q.C.

SPEECH ON ADDRESS, FEBRUARY 1870. 335

which more than another requires discretion and prudence, and
which more than another requires a man who weighs his words,
it is that of Law Adviser to the Castle. Well, the gentleman
who had filled that honourable post was, I will not say the
Government candidate, because honourable gentlemen opposite
might blame me for using so unconstitutional a phrase, but
the only candidate who came forward to vindicate the policy of
the Government, and to support them. I know nothing of the
green scarf which he is said to have worn, but I think it highly
probable that he did attire himself in that way ; for his mind
seems thoroughly permeated with that hue as appears from all
his observations. He came forward as the advocate of the
immediate release of the Fenian prisoners, and gave three
cheers for the people in prison, a most remarkable exhibition
of discretion on the part of the late Law Adviser of the Castle.
He declared himself a firm supporter of fixity of tenure in
land. Now, Sir, notwithstanding the reckless manner in which
the late Law Adviser of the Castle — who, it was generally sup-
posed, was going to be something greater than Law Adviser "to
the Castle if he succeeded in securing his election — notwith-
standing the reckless manner in which he pledged himself to
his intended constituents — he was defeated. He was defeated l
under circumstances which we shall have to consider in the
next eight and forty hours. The people of Ireland had to
choose between a sham Fenian and a real Fenian, and it is
astonishing what a preference is always given to the genuine
article.

But now I must call the attention of the House to what
occurred when the Government candidate was defeated, though
he had pledged himself to all those revolutionary doctrines.
All this time, especially from the period when Lord Stanley
delivered those observations which I have quoted, horrible
scenes of violence had been occurring in Ireland, but the
Government would never move. Landlords were shot down
like game, respectable farmers were beaten to death with
sticks by masked men ; bailiffs were shot in the back ; police-
men were stabbed ; the High Sheriff of a county going to
swear in the grand jury was fired at in his carriage and dan-
By O'Donovan Rossa.

335 SPEECHES OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD.

gerously wounded ; households were blown up, and firearms
surreptitiously obtained. All this time the Government would
not move ; but the moment the Government candidate was
defeated on the hustings — a Government candidate pledged to
confiscation — pledged to a course of action which would de-
stroy all civil government — the moment that occurred there
was panic in the Castle, there was confusion in the Council ;
the wires of Aldershot were agitated ; troops were put in
motion, sent across from Liverpool to Dublin, and concentrated
in Waterford, Tipperary, and Cork. And all this because the
candidate who was prepared to support the Government had
lost his election.

I remember one of Her Majesty's ministers saying, I think
last year — * Anyone can govern Ireland with troops and artil-
lery.' So it seems ; even that right honourable gentleman.
But I will not further notice on this occasion anything that
may have been said or done by that minister, because I hear
with deep regret that he is obliged to be absent.

Now, I ask the House to consider whether this state of
things has not resulted from an erroneous interpretation which
the people of Ireland have put on the avowed policy of Govern-
ment, and from the circumstance that the Government have
refrained from attempting in any way to remove the miscon-
ception; and what is the position in which we are now probably
to be placed. Her Majesty's Government have given notice of
their intention to bring forward in a few days a measure re-
specting the tenure of land in Ireland. I have every hope — I
will say every expectation — that it will be a just and prudent
measure. If so, it will obtain impartial consideration on both
sides of the House, and, so far as I am concerned, it will
obtain cordial support. I apprehend it will be a measure that
will deal with all necessary points, and with none other ; that
it will contain nothing that is visionary and fantastic. But if
it be a measure of this kind, what will the late Law Adviser of
the Castle say ? What will the Earl of Granard, Her Majesty's
representative, Lord Lieutenant of a county, and Knight of St.
Patrick say ? Above all, what will the honourable member for
Kilkenny say ? And when men in their position — men of

SPEECH ON ADDRESS, FEBRUARY 1870. 337

intelligence and education — are disappointed, what will be the
feeling among the great body of the Koman Catholic population
of Ireland ? What will be the feeling of the farmers and
peasants who denounce the proposed settlement of 1868, and
who said at their last great meeting that nothing but perpe-
tuity of tenure would do, because that was a word about which
there could be no mistake ? Sir, I think this is a matter of
very serious consideration for the House. I object to the
position taken by the right honourable gentleman. He will
excuse me if I say that on this point the language in the
Speech from the Throne is ambiguous and confused. Are we
to understand that no measures for the protection of life and
property are to be taken until these Bills have been passed,
and the effects of them have been felt in Ireland ? If that is
the case we may be prepared for a scene of disorder and dis-
turbance in that country such as has never before been ex-
perienced, and such as we shall find great difficulty in success-
fully encountering. The mention of Ireland in the Queen's
Speech is to me inadequate and inaccurate.

I may be asked by the right honourable gentleman, ' If
that be your opinion why do you not move an amendment on
the Address, and give us what you conceive to be an adequate
and accurate description ? ' I believe that would be not only
unwise, but under the present circumstances of the case, a
most improper step on my part. If we are to have a Bill on
the tenure of land brought in, we ought, if possible, to consider
it free from party feelings, and with the anxious desire, not to
satisfy the wild vagaries of the Irish people, but to lay the
foundation of the future welfare and prosperity of Ireland.
Then, if so, I can imagine nothing more unwise, or I would
say unprincipled, than to precipitate a party division on such
a subject only a few days before the introduction of the
measure. But I do wish to impress upon the House the great
responsibility which they incur on this subject. This is still a
new House of Commons. Men have entered it who are proud,
and justly proud, to be members of such an assembly ; but they
may depend on it that if they do not resolve to consider the
question of Irish government, not only in a large but in a firm
VOL. n. z

338

SPEECHES OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD.

spirit ; if they think it possible that the spirit and sense of the
people of England will long endure the chronic state of distur-
bance that now prevails in Ireland, they are much mistaken.
And they may be equally certain that when this Parliament
comes to a conclusion, which they have entered with so much
pride and so much justifiable self-complacency, if they err in the
course they take on this question, if they sanction a policy
which, if unchecked, must lead to the dismemberment of the
empire, and even to the partial dissolution of society, they will
look back on the day they entered Parliament with very
different feelings from those which now influence them, and
they will remember this House of Commons with dismay and
remorse.

339

IRISH LAND BILL. March 11, 1870.1
(SECOND READING.)

[In the statement that by giving the tenant a property in his
occupation ' you terminate at one fell swoop all the moral relations
between the owner and occupier/ is to be found the gist of Mr.
Disraeli's objections to this memorable measure. It is interesting to
compare with this Mr. Gladstone's speech 2 on introducing the Bill ,
from which we must infer that he expected it to develop in Ireland
these very same moral relations of which Mr. Disraeli speaks,
and which with some exceptions had hitherto been confined to
England.]

ME. DISEAELI : Sir, we are called upon to read a second
time a Bill to amend the law respecting the owners and
occupiers of land in Ireland. It is not an agricultural Bill ; it
is a political Bill. I do not use that epithet in the sense
which my right honourable friend the member for the Univer-
sity of Dublin (Dr. Ball) used it some few nights ago in his
admirable speech. I do not mean to say that it is a revolu-
tionary Bill ; but it is a Bill the object of which is, not to im-
prove the cultivation of land, but to improve the relations
between important classes of Her Majesty's subjects. Now,
Sir, a minister who could come forward and propose to deal —
to meddle, I would rather say — with the relations between land-
lord and tenant, wou'd undertake a task from which I think
the most experienced and most resolute man would shrink,
unless there was an urgent necessity of State for doing it. I
myself acknowledge that the circumstances of Ireland are such

1 This speech is reprinted from Hansard's Debates by permission of Mr.
Hansard.

• Hansard, vol. cxcix. pp. 340, 351, 352.

z 2

,540 SPEECHES OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD.

as not only to justify the minister, but to call upon him to ask
the attention of Parliament to this question, and invite it to
come to some decision upon it.

Sir, I will not enter, or attempt to enter, into the long
catalogue of the various and complicated causes which have
brought Ireland, so far as the relations between the pro-
prietor and the occupier of the soil are concerned, into such
a position that it becomes the duty of the minister and of
Parliament to legislate, or propose to legislate, upon the
subject. But although I shrink from, and, from fear of
wearying the House, avoid that topic, I may be permitted,
I hope — speaking, as I trust I shall to-night, with the
utmost impartiality, and not appearing here, as some honour-
able gentlemen do, as the advocate either of the tenant or
of the landlord in particular — I hope I may be allowed to
congratulate the landlords of Ireland upon this — that the re-
sult of all these investigations, of this protracted discussion, and
of the scrutinising mind of the ministry of this country being
brought to bear on this subject, has been that it has greatly
cleared their reputation and strengthened their position.
They cannot be accused of rapacity who, it is proved, receive a
lower rent than the landlords of England ; they cannot be
accused of ruthlessness when the solitary instances with pain
and difficulty brought forward against them are instances of a
very few men of crazy imagination and conduct ; and if we
were to make a selection in England in the same spirit we
might, perhaps, find a few individual proprietors influenced by
similar feelings. In the result there would be the same
amount of justice, and the same honour to the discoverers of
the exceptional instances.

I may be allowed, if, indeed, it be necessary, to remind
the House that this is no new question. It has now been
in some degree under the consideration of Parliament and
of the country for many years. I do not mean to say that
the period which has elapsed since it was first mooted as
a Parliamentary question has been one, considering its import-
ance and magnitude, that may be deemed unreasonable.
It is a habit of this country — a wise and salutary habit,

IEISH LAND BILL, MAECH 1870. 341

which guards us from precipitate legislation — that a question
should be fairly discussed and understood, not merely by cabi-
nets and councils, but by the nation altogether, before we give
it the final seal of permanent legislation. Sir, we have had
many references, in the course of the interesting debate which
the motion of the right honourable gentleman has produced,
to important documents, such as the Bills brought forward by
ministers who have at various times endeavoured to bring this
great controversy to a favourable and satisfactory termination.
But I am surprised that during this protracted debate such
very slight and casual reference has been made to a document
which, after all, is more important than any Bill that has ever
been proposed by any minister, and that is the Keport of the
Devon Commission.1

From the moment that the Keport of the Devon Com-
mission— which was proposed to Parliament by one of the
most eminent statesmen of this country — was laid on our
table, some legislation upon the relations that existed between
landlord and tenant in Ireland seemed to be inevitable. From
that moment it became a public question, and one of the
highest interest. I grant, Sir, that there were some persons
who were then of opinion that, by the consequences of that
dire calamity, perhaps the greatest and most awful visitation
of the century, which occurred in Ireland — the famine — that
by the great reduction of the population of that country, some
of the difficulties, and those the most important, with reference
to the condition of Ireland might have been removed as regards
the tenure of land. But, although the population of Ireland
was so largely reduced, and although in consequence of such
reduction the competition for land has equally diminished, and
for a time, and a very brief time, some solution of the difficulty
was recognised in those circumstances, still the famine in
Ireland brought about another great event in the social condi-
tion of that country 2 — namely, the creation of a new class of

1 A Royal Commission, of which the Earl of Devon was chairman,
appointed in 1843 to inquire into the law and practice with regard to the
occupation of land in Ireland. The Report was presented to Parliament in
February 1845.

2 Reference to Encumbered Estates Act, 1849.

342 SPEECHES OF THE EARL OF BEACOXSFIELD.

proprietors of land, which prevented that alleviation of the
difficulties which was anticipated, and which in a certain
degree ultimately aggravated them.

We must remember that by the encouragement of England,
at the invitation of its ministers, and by the legislation of
Parliament, Englishmen and Scotchmen were invited to invest
their capital in the purchase of the land of Ireland. We must
also remember that at that period it was also impressed upon
the country, in the spirit in which the present Bill has been
drawn and proposed, that the relation between landlord and
tenant ought to be a purely commercial relation ; and unless
it was such no satisfactory result could be obtained. The con-
sequence of this was that a great body of proprietors, men of
capital, sense, and science, entered into a bargain at the invi-
tation of the State, which they on their part have rigidly ful-
filled. They no doubt introduced a treatment of those who were
dependent upon them, as regards the tenure of land, very
different from that which was expected by those who had so
long enjoyed the facility and forbearance of the old Irish land-
lords— that body of men's conduct is now denounced, and their
ruthlessness and rapacity held up to public odium.

Sir, the right honourable gentleman the member for Lis-
keard (Mr. Horsman) said last night that, from the moment
the Keport of the Devon Commission was issued, this all-im-
portant question was trifled with by successive ministries who
have endeavoured to deal with this question, who have given
to its consideration great thought and labour, and who were
prepared to stand or fall by the measures which they intro-
duced. I must, though I hope with good temper, utterly
repudiate the imputation of the right honourable gentleman.
And I am bound to say from what I know of public life, such
as I can observe from my seat in this House, I have no reason
to believe that those who sit opposite to me, and who in the
course of their career have also been responsible for Bills to
establish more satisfactory relations between landlords and
tenants in Ireland — I say I do not believe they were animated
by any other spirit than we were. Sir, I cannot for one moment
believe that they trifled with this question ; but, on the other

I

IRISH LAND BILL, MAKCH 1870. 343

hand, I am confident that they gave to it all the pains which
learning and research could bring to the solution of this diffi-
cult question, and that they were prepared to exert the utmost
of their Parliamentary influence to carry the result of their
deliberations into effect.

The right honourable gentleman the member for Liskeard
was himself, I believe, secretary to the Lord Lieutenant ! for no
brief period. I never understood that he introduced any Bill
with regard to the land of Ireland, or, indeed, brought in any
Bill upon any subject whatever connected with Ireland during
his term of office. But we never placed upon the conduct of
the right honourable gentleman that uncharitable interpretation
which he has been pleased to place upon the conduct of those
who fill both this and the opposite benches, who did attempt
to deal with this question. Both sides of the House acknow-
ledge that the right honourable gentleman the member for
Liskeard is a superior person. When he did not introduce a
Bill upon Irish land ; when he did not during his tenure of
office introduce a Bill upon any subject whatever in connection
with that country ; when, on quitting office, he informed us, to
my wonder and surprise, and especially to the astonishment of
the Earl of Mayo, that he had not brought forward any measure
on any subject whatever because he found his office was a com-
plete sinecure, we, still knowing what a superior person the
right honourable gentleman was, did not put an uncharitable
interpretation on his conduct, but said, * This is a part of some
profound policy, which will end in the regeneration of Ireland
and in the consolidation of Her Majesty's United Kingdom.'

Now, Sir, let me remind the House of what they have pro-
bably forgotten — namely, what was proposed in reference to
this subject by the Government of 1852, with which I had
the honour to be connected. We laid upon the table of the
House four Bills, forming a complete code as regards the land
of Ireland. I can describe those four Bills in a sentence.
They adopted every recommendation of the Devon Commis-
sion. Sir, if those Bills had passed we should not now have
been discussing the measure of the right honourable gentlemen
1 Secretary to the Earl of Carlisle from 1855-57.

344 SPEECHES OF THE EAEL OF BEACONSFIELD.

opposite. Circumstances, however, occurred which prevented
these Bills from passing. There was a change of Government.
Yet, in the interval that elapsed between the end of 1852 and
the year 1860, what occurred with regard to legislation in
respect of the land of Ireland ? Every provision of these four
Bills, with one vital exception, passed piecemeal during that
interval. The limited owner was invested with power to make
improvements, and to charge them upon the inheritance.
That was a leading principle in one of the four Bills which I
have said were laid upon the table. Before two years it was
passed. The borrowing powers of the Irish proprietor generally
were proposed to be extended. That was passed. The limited
owner was permitted to enter into contracts with the tenant.
That was passed. A consolidation and code of all the laws relat-
ing to landlord and tenant in Ireland was successfully passed
by Sir Joseph Napier, although in Opposition, in 1860 ; and
that code and consolidation included many valuable amend-
ments of the law.

The particular Bill which we brought forward in 1852,
which would have regulated the relations between landlord and
tenant in Ireland, was referred, after the fall of our Govern-
ment, to a Select Committee. The labours of that Select
Committee I will not dwell upon, because it would weary the
House, and time will not permit. They experienced various
complications and many strange vicissitudes ; but this was the
result — every provision in the Bill that we brought forward to
regulate the relations of landlord and tenant in Ireland was
adopted by that committee with one vital exception, and a Bill
was at last passed in 1860 to regulate those relations, with the
omission of what I consider to be a vital clause in the Bill of
1852 — namely, that which gave compensation to the tenant for
improvements, and retrospective compensation. I might have
dwelt longer on this matter, but that I believe to be a fair and
candid description of the proposals we made. And I say that
the Government which made these proposals ought not to be
subjected to the careless taunts of a gentleman who has beei
absent for some little time from the House, and comes back tc
denounce public men who have given most laborious hours to,

IRISH LAND BILL, MARCH 1870. 345

and incurred heavy responsibility in connection with, this sub-
ject, and who ought not to be told that successive ministries
have trifled with it.

I was in favour, in 1852, of giving compensation to the Irish
tenant for his improvements, and within due limits, and with
necessary conditions of prudence and discretion, I was in favour
of retrospective compensation. Sir, I am still of that opinion.
I believe that in retrospective compensation there should be a
term fixed — moderate and reasonable, not of too long dura-
tion— and that it should extend to all objects, without any ex-
ception. But, Sir, I regret to say, and I say it in passing, for
hitherto I have not touched on the present Bill — I do not
approve of that provision which would assume that all past
improvements have been made by the tenant instead of by the
landlord. Indeed, with such a condition I could not entertain
the proposition to provide for retrospective improvements.
Sir, it appears to me, though this is hardly the moment to
touch upon the subject, and therefore I will advert to it only
by a word, that the wisest course in that matter is to put the
onus probandi upon neither party. I am quite certain that, as
respects the landlord, it would act in a spirit of great injustice ;
it would require him to do things which he could never have
anticipated that the law would have called on him to do ; and
with one bailiff who is dead, and another who is absent, with-
out register or record kept of what has occurred, to ask
him now to accede to a proposal which is novel, I will
not say irregular, but certainly one of which this country
has little experience — it is to my mind a most impolitic
act to bring forward that proposition with respect to a sub-
ject upon which I hope now there is generally a mutual agree-
ment.

Now, I find that this great question of compensation for
improvements, especially retrospective compensation for im-
provements, which was included in our land code of 1852, is
now proposed and conceded by the Government in the Bill
before us. Well, Sir, that alone, in my mind, is a sufficient
reason why I should assent to the second reading of this Bill.
And here I would say one word before I proceed further with

346 SPEECHES OF THE KIEL OF BEACONSFIELD.

respect to the position in which gentlemen on this side of the
House are placed by assenting to the second reading. I under-
stand by assenting to the second reading of the Bill that I
assent to its principle ; and I look upon its principle to be an
amendment of the laws relating to the occupation and owner-
ship of land in Ireland.

I do not know what the Judge Advocate-General ] means
by his cheer. I think he made a most indiscreet and incon-
siderate observation when he fixed upon three provisions 2 of
the Bill, respecting which he must have anticipated there must
be great controversy ; and, representing the Government, said,
' These are the three principles of the Bill, and every gentleman
who votes for the second reading is pledged to those prin-
ciples.' The consequence of the speech of the Judge Advocate
was, I am told, that several much-respected members of this
House, whose votes upon this subject I should have been very
glad to have seen arranged on the same side with mine, quitted
the House. Such is the result of a speech made by a man of
talent, placed for the first time in a position to which he is
unaccustomed. Now, Sir, I have explained to the House, and
I believe every gentleman on this side of the House under-
stands, the principle of this Bill. It is that we are prepared
' to amend the law relating to the occupation and the owner-
ship of land in Ireland ; ' and when we go into Committee we
shall consider its provisions.

So far as my position is concerned, I might stop there.
I might have remained silent but for the speech of the learned
Judge Advocate : and the right honourable gentleman could
not with reason complain if, when we went into Committee, he
was met by amendments for which he is not prepared. But,
Sir, I think it better that we, not objecting to the second
reading of a Bill of the vast importance of the present, should
indicate the great points on which we think there is difference
between us and the Government, and thereby indicate the course
that we shall take in the scrutinising labours of the Com-

1 Sir Colman O'Loghlen.

- 1. The legalisation of the Ulster custom ; 2. The legalisation of other
customs ; 3. The grant of a property in occupancy.

IKISH LAXD BILL, MARCH 1870. 347

inittee, and perhaps induce the Government, before we reach
that ceremony, to consider their position on those points, and
meet us in that spirit of compromise which I flatter myself may
distinguish our general labours in Committee. Therefore it is
that, having guarded myself against the rash conclusions of the
Judge Advocate, I will very briefly mention the points on which
I have grave doubts at present, and on which, so far as I am
advised, I shall feel it iny duty, as others will feel it theirs, to
ask the Government to reconsider their position ; or if they will
not do so, to appeal to the wisdom and patriotism of the Com-
mittee in which we shall soon find ourselves.

And now, Sir, the first point on which I had very grave
doubts is as to the propriety of that proposition of the ministry
which relates to what is called the Ulster custom. It appears to
me impossible that the Bill can pass with regard to this part of
the subject in the form in which it is framed : but the objec-
tions which I have are so very grave that they are objections to
the principle, and it is my duty to place them at once before
the consideration of the House. What is this first clause of the
Bill, respecting the legality of what is called Ulster tenant-right
custom ? It is neither more nor less than asking Parliament
to legalise the private arrangements of every estate in the north
of Ireland. What is the Ulster custom 2 No gentleman has
pretended to tell us. There is no such thing as an Ulster
custom. There are a variety of customs as respects tenant-
right in Ulster, as there are a great many such customs in the
other parts of Ireland, but there is no gentleman who can tell
us what the Ulster custom is ; and this is so obvious and
acknowledged that we have absolutely a notice on our paper at
the present moment in which an honourable member for the
first time attempts to make a definition of the Ulster custom,
and asks Parliament to consider it.

Now, Sir, I consider that the utmost difficulty, not to say
impossibility, lurks in the course which the Government are
recommending us to take on this subject. I see no termination
to the controversy, nor can I see what settlement even the
highest authorities can bring to bear upon this subject, because
their decision upon any one case will not decide another case,

348 SPEECHES OF THE EABL OF BEACONSFIELD.

for the reason that the circumstances which will be brought
before the authorities will be ever varying. In my mind there-
is a complete fallacy in the argument that has been offered in
the course of this debate by several gentlemen, and recently
— I remember it better because it is recently — by the Judge
Advocate-General, who says, 'Why, all we ask is that you
should do in Ireland what you have done in England : you have
legalised the custom of tenant-right in parts of England, why
should you not legalise it in parts of Ireland ? ' The right
honourable gentleman did not see or would not acknowledge
that there is a vital difference between the two instances.
The very language which we use upon this subject in this
country indicates the difference.

My honourable friend the member for Lincolnshire (Mr.
Chaplin) in his able speech gave us a picturesque, an animated,
and a true account of the admirable tenant-right which exists
in Lincolnshire. But what is it called there? It is called
there, as in other parts of England, the * custom of the country : *
everybody knows it as a custom, because it is ancient, because
it existed before the memory of man, because it is prescrip-
tive, because it is certain, because it is both the custom of the
country, and also the common law of England. But is there
anyone who can get up in his place in Parliament and for a
moment pretend that these qualities attach to any private
arrangements that exist in Ulster ? No one pretends that there
is any custom of Ulster. There is no prescription, because it
is not ancient ; there is no certainty, because it varies under
every rule. Then I want to know in what manner you will
deal with this question of Ulster custom. Besides, even if it
were a custom, I very much doubt the propriety, as a general
principle, of legalising customs. The moment you legalise a
custom you fix its particular character ; but the value of a
custom is its flexibility, and that it adapts itself to all the cir-
cumstances of the moment and of the locality. All these
qualities are lost the moment you crystallise a custom into
legislation. Customs may not be as wise as laws, but they are
always more popular. They array upon their side alike the
convictions and the prejudices of men. They are spontaneous.

IEISH LAND BILL, MAECH 1870. 349

They grow out of man's necessities and invention, and as cir-
cumstances change and alter and die off, the custom falls into
desuetude, and we get rid of it. But if you make it into law,
circumstances alter, but the law remains, and becomes part of
that obsolete legislation which haunts our statute-book and
harasses society.

Therefore I say, as a general principle, I am against
legalising customs. You cannot, if you are to legalise custom,
legalise the custom of Ulster, because it does not exist. But
if it does exist, what is the reason that you should have
special legislation for the custom of Ulster? These agricultural
customs exist in other parts of Ireland ; you have provided for
them in your Bill. Why should there be two clauses — one for
Ulster and one for the other customs ? Protesting against
legalising customs, I say that, if the House in its wisdom
decides upon that course, it will be expedient to get rid of this
special legislation for Ulster, and to support a general clause
upon the whole subject of legalising the agricultural customs of
Ireland.

I now proceed to another part of the Bill, of which I
entirely disapprove, and that is the compensation that is to be
given for occupation. We have heard many objections to the
principle of the clause. I may touch upon them, but I wish at
once to state the reason why I particularly object to that clause.
It is not upon the interest peculiarly of the landlord that I
found my objection. My objection to this clause, which, at the
iirst blush, recognises property in occupation, and which there-
fore I am not surprised has alarmed many gentlemen, is that
this is a proposition which terminates at one fell swoop all
moral relations between the owner and the occupier. Although
some years ago we used to hear a great deal upon the subject,
I doubt very much whether you can convert the relation
between landlord and tenant into a purely commercial relation.
There is something, I think, in the nature of the property itself
— something in the inevitable consequences of local circum-
stances and local influences, that would always prevent such a
consummation ; and, as far as I can observe or have learnt, these
circumstances have prevented the establishment of a purely

350 SPEECHES OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD.

commercial relation even in Scotand, where the experiment
would appear to have been tried under the most favourable cir-
cumstances. But of this I am sure, that it is a relation that
never could be established in the case of circumstances such as
mainly exist in Ireland. If ever there was a state of society in
which the relations between landlord and tenant should be
paternal, it is in a country where you have farmers of an acre,
and where a man pays you, as my right honourable friend (Mr.
Gathorne Hardy) mentioned last night, 40s. for his annual rent.

Now, Sir, this clause, in my opinion, terminates all moral
relations whatever. No doubt there may be some gentle-
men— and those probably who have least considered the
subject — -who will be surprised to hear that there are moral
relations existing between landlords and their tenants even in
the extreme south of Ireland. But among the most important
moral relations between these two classes is exactitude in
demanding and paying rent. Sir, moral qualities of a very high
order are developed when the tenant does not pay you rent. For-
bearance in its most Christian aspect may then be exhibited
in a manner that may claim the respect and admiration of
society. There is no body of men who require forbearance to
be shown to them more than those small Irish tenants. In
what position towards them do you now place the Irish land-
lords, to whose sympathy and kindness the tenants hitherto
have preferred a claim ?

An industrious man, a hard-working and good man, is over-
come, we will suppose, by some of those vicissitudes of seasons
which Ireland is not exempt from, and he applies — as others
have applied before, and not in vain — to the distinguished
facility and good nature of the Irish landlord. But the landlord
naturally asks, who is the man who thus comes to me with a
claim for consideration ? The relations that once existed, the
relation of patron and client — a relation that, truly conceived
and generously administered, is one of the strongest elements
of the social system — no longer subsists. And the landlord
says, * This man, who comes and asks me to exercise all the
higher qualities of human nature — this man, under the law as
it has now been constituted — is a man who is no longer my

IKISH LAND BILL, MARCH 1870. 351

tenant, but my co-partner. He may to-morrow, by the decision
of some person that I have never heard of, claim seven years'
rent from me, to be increased by at least three years' more rent
if he leaves me unexhausted improvements, of the existence of
which I am not even conscious. The value of my estate is
only twenty years' purchase; he has consequently as much
interest in the estate as myself. Why, then, should I suffer
inconvenience and loss, or forbear from vindicating my rights ? '
I say that this appeal of a tenant under circumstances such as
I have described would be one of the very last which was calcu-
lated to touch the heart of a proprietor. But this is the position
in which you propose to place landlord and tenant for the
future, terminating all those moral relations which have pre-
vailed, and even in the most unhappy times have been- ex-
tensively exercised.

There are those who also object to the clause because, in
their mind, it converts occupancy into property. If that were
the case, the objections to the clause would be so strong that I
could not bring myself to support it. But I have placed a
different construction upon the clause — the same which was
expressed with so much clearness the other night by my right
honourable friend the member for the University of Dublin
(Dr. Ball), who looked upon this as a constructive contract,
which, though there was no lease between the landlord and
the tenant, secured to him an equity and the opportunity of
having complete cultivation of the land. That he could not
have in a year or six months ; and that may be a fair ground
for giving the person who loses his occupancy a liberal com-
pensation, though it appears to me that, under these circum-
stances, the compensation suggested by the right honourable
gentleman would be excessive.

Well, Sir, there is another point on which I wish to make a
remark, and only one. It is a subject which must engage our
attention by-and-by, and that is the proposition of the right
honourable gentleman in this Bill to make advances of public
money for a variety of objects. Now, I am not prepared to say
that it is not quite justifiable on the part of the State occasion-
ally to make advances for the benefit of a class, with the con-

352 SPEECHES OF THE EAKL OF BEACONSFIELD.

viction that in benefiting that class you are bringing advantage
to the body politic generally. Under such circumstances, how-
ever, we have a right, I think, to look to these two considerations
— that the advances should be made with good security, and
that they should be made for a beneficial object. Now, Sir,
I will not go into the variety of quarters to which, if this policy
is admitted, under this Bill, advances may be made ; but with
regard to the tenant I must at once say that I greatly object
to advances to the tenant in Ireland in order that he should
purchase freehold. Our great object, as it appears to me, is to
make the Irish tenant more efficient — to make his tenure more
secure, as secure as we can without trespassing on the legitimate
rights of property — encouraging him to dedicate and devote all
his resources to the cultivation of the soil. That is, I think,
our great object. If you induce the tenant to divert a portion of
the capital which he ought to dedicate to the cultivation of the
soil to the attainment of another and quite a different object,
it appears to me no policy can be more unwise than that the
tendency of which is to make at the same time of one man an
inefficient tenant and a poor proprietor. Now, Sir, I well know
that in a Bill for which I have a share of responsibility, and
the full responsibility of which I am ready to take — the last
Land Bill produced by the Earl of Mayo — there was a provision
to make advances to tenants under certain conditions ; but
what was the object of those conditions ? The object of those
advances was to assist the tenant in the better cultivation of the
soil. These advances were made for drainage, for building, for
fencing ; and by these advances you really increase the capital
devoted to the cultivation of the soil. You render the tenant
more efficient ; you give him greater power and the opportunity
of reaping greater profits. That is not the result of the propo-
sition of Her Majesty's ministers in this case, and I will not
relinquish the hope that when that question is fairly discussed
in Committee, and when Her Majesty's Government have given
to it further consideration, and become better acquainted with
the feeling of the House, they may be induced to withdraw that
part of the measure.

This, Sir, brings me to a point which has been noticed in

IRISH LAND BILL, MARCH 1870. 353

this debate, which is a very important one, but which does not
appear to me yet to have received all the attention it .deserves
— and that is the purchase under the Landed and Encumbered
Estates Acts. The defence by the Secretary l to the Lord Lieu-
tenant the other night of the course recommended by the
minister on that head was to me eminently unsatisfactory. It
depended entirely on the quotation of what Judge Longfield
wrote in a tract I believe recently published. Sir, I have great
respect for the authority of Judge Longfield ; but it did not
appear to me, as I listened to the quotation, that it applied to
the particular instance before our consideration at present, and
I have since learnt, referring to the volume, that that is the
case. There is no doubt that the purchasers under the Landed
and Encumbered Estates Acts are not in any way debarred from
the future taxation of the country, or the calls upon them which
may be demanded by the necessities of the State and the
nation at a period subsequent to those purchases. There is no
doubt of that. No one would for a moment contend that
because they purchased their estates in those courts and had a
Parliamentary title, they were to be exempt from any demands
which the wisdom of Parliament might call on them, in common
with other property of the country, to meet. But that gives
only an entirely incorrect view of the question before us. I do
not know whether gentlemen on either side have seen a con-
veyance under the Landed and Encumbered Estates Acts in
Ireland. If they have not, it is a piece of information they can
easily obtain in the interval of this time and the Committee,
and they will find it extremely instructive.

Now, allow me briefly to describe what a conveyance is under
•the Landed Estates Act. It is the shortest conveyance in the
world ; it is a Parliamentary title, and is given in a few lines.
But it contains a guarantee : and what is that guarantee ? That
guarantee is a guarantee from the State against any other than
the claims which are contained in a schedule engrossed and
printed on the very deed of conveyance. Now, what are those
claims in this schedule ? Listen : these claims are the claims
of the tenants on the estate. Every tenant is called upon to
1 Mr. Chichester Fortescue, afterwards Lord Carlingford.

VOL. II. A A

354 SPEECHES OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD.

make his claim and send it in to the court signed with his name,
before the conveyance is executed, and from these claims that
schedule is drawn up. The purchaser receives a guarantee of
his property free from all claims, except the scheduled list of the
claims of the tenants, drawn up by themselves, which is on the
very side of the conveyance. And how is it possible to contend
that under such a guarantee you now can call upon the purchasers
to satisfy claims of these very tenants which, according to your
projected Bill, existed at the time of the purchase and even
previous to the purchase ?

It may be most wise and expedient, if you do legislate in
this manner, and that tenants under these purchases should
enjoy the same privileges as other tenants. That is a point
I will not now argue ; but it is quite clear that under those
circumstances the new proprietor must be entitled to com-
pensation, and you cannot move in this business without
compensation. This is a matter which must be decided by
lawyers, and I do not pretend to give an opinion on such a sub-
ject which shall be definite ; but what I want to do is to put
before the House the real state of the case, in order that you
may understand that if there be a guarantee of this kind, the
guarantee must be fulfilled. And no quotation from a treatise
by a judge, writing on totally different questions, which may
very easily be brought forward in debate, can settle a question
of this grave and precise character. Much depends in this
matter on the tribunal which will carry this Bill, if it become
laAv, into effect.

The Secretary of the Lord Lieutenant the other night
boasted of the simplicity of this measure. He said that fo:
simplicity there had never been a Land Bill equal to it before,
and of its simplicity he appeared perfectly proud. Now, with-
out giving any final or general opinion as to the merits of the
measure, this much I will venture to say, that a more com-
plicated, a more clumsy, or a more heterogeneous measure was
never yet brought before the consideration of Parliament.
What moved the right honourable gentleman to get us into all
the intricacies in reference to Ulster ?

What's Hecuba to him, or he to Hecuba ?

!

IRISH LAND BILL, MAKCH 1870. 355

Why should he have made arrangements with regard to the three
other provinces, and brought them in collision with this more
favoured province ? We have had to-night a detailed account from
the honourable member for Galway (Mr. W. H. Gregory) of the
principles on which a Bill upon this subject should be founded :
and I am going to give, my model of a Bill, and its recom-
mendation shall be simplicity and brevity. I mention this in
a whisper across the table, in the hope that the right honourable
gentleman opposite may consider the proposal, and leave all the
customs of Ireland alone. They are very effective at the pre-
sent moment. If you legalise the custom, the chance is that
you diminish the moral incidents of the arrangement without
practically increasing the legal power. It is better to leave
those incidents to work their way, as they have hitherto done,
with very general satisfaction.

But if a man without a lease, and who had paid his rent,
is evicted, why, let his case go before the tribunal you shall
appoint : let the judge investigate all the elements of the
equity of the case : and let him come to a decision which
on one side shall guard the tenant from coercion, and on the
other preserve the landlord from fraud. Why cannot you
do this ? You are going to create a tribunal. Then create
at once an efficient tribunal, and delegate to it the authority I
have mentioned. It would not be so great a violation of the
principle of property as these complicated provisions before us.
Then you would have a simple piece of legislation, and one
which, I believe, with a few provisoes and additions, would
satisfy the necessities of this difficult question.

What, however, should the tribunal be ? I must say I

«/

have great doubts as to the manner in which the tribunal
proposed by the Bill is intended to be formed. I will not now
go into the question of the courts of arbitration, though I
gathered from the mode in which the right honourable gentle-
man the Prime Minister spoke of them, that he has great
confidence in those courts. I know it is a method which re-
commends itself to his generous and susceptible nature ; but
acting upon my own feelings, I should not like to go to
those courts. Though the conception recommends itself by the

A A 2

356 SPEECHES OF THE EAEL OF BEACONSFIELD.

amenity of the design, I cannot believe that practically, in the
present state of Ireland, they will be found to work with very
great felicity. But if you do not succeed in your arbitration,
you then go to another person, and that other person, in mas-
querade and graceful dress, is our old friend the assistant
barrister. I have heard of him for many years, and in my time
he has done a great deal of service. Well, the assistant barris-
ter is a resident or a non-resident. (A'cry of ' Non-resident!')
I am told that in consequence of the state of Irish society he
is always careful to be non-resident. The non-resident assistant
barrister, educated in the four courts, acute and intelligent, is
sent for to decide these questions between landlord and tenant,
and, probably not being able to distinguish at first glance
between a grass field and a field of young oats, is required to
decide on all the conditions and circumstances of rural life, to
enter into protracted accounts, and come to a determination on
a matter in which considerations even of ' moral conduct ' may
largely enter.

Well, Sir, I cannot think myself that the assistant bar-
rister, with that ignorance of country life which is an unfor-
tunate incident of his position, is a person qualified to
perform those first duties ; but if he perform those first duties
in a manner unsatisfactory to either party, that party will have
the power of appeal, and on appeal, the matter will be brought
before the Judges of Assize. Well, Sir, that sounds very grand
and very satisfactory. There are few gentlemen on this side or
that side who do not know something of assizes and the Judges
of Assize. The judges are men whose every hour and half hour
is mapped out before they embark on their great enterprise.
The Judges of Assize are on Monday in this town, on Wednes-
day in another town, and on Friday in a third. They are
followed by an excited and ambitious Bar, with their carriages
in the railways full of briefs — full of the great trials which are
coming on, causes which have engrossed and excited an anxious
society for months, and from which they are to gain immortal
honours — to be returned for boroughs, to be made Solicitor-
Grenerals, and to rise to the highest positions on the Bench.
Well, when the judges come to the first town where those great

IRISH LAND BILL, MAECH 1870. 357

exploits are to be fulfilled, and those great feats accomplished,
where multitudes are waiting to receive them, and where the
galleries are full of ladies — particularly if the cases are of a deli-
cate character — all this great business is to be arrested because
the first cases to be brought before the Judges of Assize are appeals
from the assistant barristers on the relations between landlord
and tenant in Ireland.

Why, Sir, we know very well what will happen. Those
appeals will demand from the Judges of Assize the concentra-
tion of their whole intellect. They will have to investigate
the circumstances of a mode of life with which they are little
acquainted, and which their acuteness alone will enable them
to detach from the entanglements of the local lawyers. They
will have to go into accounts, and they will have, in the
language of this Bill, to do that which Judges of Assize will do
with great care and the most solemn sense of responsibility — .to
enter on the ' moral conduct ' of the parties, and see how far
that ' moral conduct ' affects the contract between landlord and
tenant. And what will happen ? Either their own time will
be taken up with this duty — or what is more likely, the duties
will be performed in a most unsatisfactory and perfunctory
manner. You know something of this now in Ireland. You
have an appeal from the Civil Bill Court to two Judges of
Assize ; and is that which takes place when those appeals are
made, a satisfactory mode of administering British justice ? No.
Matters are hurried over, and questions are decided in a manner
that gives little satisfaction : and every person present, except
the suffering plaintiff or defendant, is delighted, because they
are dying to hear the blazing eloquence of the great counsel
who are ready to open causes with which these questions from
the Civil Bill Court interfere.

Therefore I think, whether I look to your primary court
or your court of appeal, the prospect is unsatisfactory. I know
it will be said that nothing can be more unwise than to
establish a new court for the trial of those cases ; it will be
said that it is the inveterate habit of a new court to make busi-
ness. I agree that it is so. If you create a new court, in
order to justify its existence and, perhaps, to increase the

358 SPEECHES OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD.

salaries of its officers, it will do its duty with such fatal
enthusiasm that there will be no end to litigation. I do not
propose a new court. , I ask the right honourable gentleman to
leave out the first two clauses, to allow customs to work their
beneficial and more convenient way as they do at present, and
to permit the tribunal to decide on the equity of the case before
it in the manner I have described. I believe that judges whom
you may send down, as we do in this country, under the last
Election Act would perform those duties satisfactorily. No man
rates more highly than I do the learning, the eloquence, and
the character of the judges at present on the Irish Bench ; but
I believe their learning could be more devoted to the public
service ; and I wish their eloquence and their high character
could exercise a greater influence on public affairs. In fact, I
must express my honest opinion that the judges in Ireland,
with all their learning, eloquence, and high character, are not
sufficiently employed for the benefit of the State and their own
happiness. They might give to those questions all the learning
and solemn authority which they require ; and I think in that
way you have a tribunal which would obtain the confidence of
the country.

There is one point more on which I wish to say something.
I believe it is a most difficult one ; but I cannot help thinking
that the more it is discussed and considered, the more public
opinion and the opinion of this House will lean towards that result
at which I confess I myself have arrived — namely, that it will be
most unwise on the part of Parliament to interfere, as this Bill
proposes to do, with the freedom of contract in Ireland. Sir,
we have always regarded freedom of contract as being one of
the greatest securities for the progress of civilisation. Just the
same as we should say that the suspension of the Habeas
Corpus Act may be necessary sometimes for public safety, so
we may say that when a country suspends its freedom of con-
tract, the State must be in a most dangerous or diseased con-
dition. I cannot bring myself to believe that the condition of
Ireland is such as to justify us in adopting what appears a per-
manent departure from one of the cardinal principles of a free
and progressive State. I think we ought to hesitate before we

IEISH LAND BILL, MAKCH 1870. 359

adopt such a course. I feel the difficulties which the Govern-
ment has to encounter in dealing with this question. I am
perfectly ready to consider it in any way in which we can pos-
sibly advance their general policy, without compromising what
I must look upon as a sacred principle. I think the House
ought to discard all pedantic scruples and all party feeling in
dealing with existing circumstances ; and I think we should be
prepared, as far as existing circumstances are concerned, to
support the general policy of the Government, and not to hesi-
tate, even when we believe that it touches upon and injures
general principles which we may consider of vital importance
in the government of the country.

But although the exigencies of the State situation may
demand and authorise such a course, that is perfectly different
from our going out of our way permanently and completely,
and announcing that Ireland is in such a condition that we
cannot allow the two most considerable classes in the country
— for the landlords and the tenants are, after all, the two
most considerable classes in the country — to enjoy the first
and most beneficial privileges of civilised life. Sir, I know
very well with regard to this most important subject, that the
right honourable gentleman may remind us of the present
peculiar condition of Ireland. I, for one, am not insensible to
the very great inconvenience, the more than inconvenience —
the great injury to the House of Commons and to the State — of
having to discuss this Bill and to decide upon this question
in the present state of that country. I wish very much that
the condition of Ireland now was what it was when we brought
in our Bill on the subject of the tenure of land in 1852. I
do not blind myself to the condition of that country now to
the effect that that condition may have upon the Legislature ;
and it is against that effect that I should wish particularly to
guard the House. I have not myself pressed Her Majesty's
ministers upon that subject, although it is one that en-
grosses, and naturally engrosses, the public mind of, England.
But, whatever I may feel upon that point, I cannot doubt
that there is one person in the country who feels it more
keenly still, and that is the right honourable gentleman upon

360 SPEECHES OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD.

whom rests the responsibility for the general condition of the-
country.

I do not share the belief which some of my honourable friends
appear to entertain, that Her Majesty's ministers could be insen-
sible to the duties which the immense difficulties of the country
now present. I could not allow the memory of old struggles
connected with Ireland to induce me for a moment to press Her
Majesty's Government to arrive at any precipitate conclusion
upon a subject which demands the gravest — I may say the
most agonising — consideration that a statesman could give to a
public question ; because to interfere in such a condition of
affairs, and to interfere efficiently, is what any public man who
deserves the confidence of his sovereign and of his country
would shrink from with a natural feeling of distress and terror.

But, Sir, we cannot avoid, now that this question is before
us, touching upon these subjects, although I trust that I shall
always speak of them with temperateness and moderation. It
is not the language of persons on either side of this House that
upon these matters now arouses and alarms the nation. It
cannot be said, if a statement is made as to the condition of
Ireland, that it is a prejudiced or a hot-headed partisan, who
has made some unauthorised statement susceptible of easy
explanation by a minister. Sir, we have had before us recently,
within only a few days, the gravest document l almost that any
country ever produced, containing descriptions of Ireland by
men qualified by their high station, by their perfect freedom
from all party passion, by the eminence of their august position,
and by the consciousness of their solemn duty, to influence the
opinion of the nation and of Parliament. Those charges have
been noticed in this House, but the attention of this House has
only been incidentally called to them, and I must say that I
regretted that the right honourable gentleman the other night,
when the charges of the Chief Justices of Ireland were alluded
to, should have thought it consistent with his duty, with the
stern reality of facts, to carp at expressions and to extract some
petty sentences, with the object, if he had an object, of convey-

1 The charge of the Lord Chief Justice of Ireland at Longford, and of the
Chief Justice of the Common Pleas at Meath.

IRISH LAND BILL, MARCH 1870. 361

ing to the House and to the country, that the country and the
House had taken an exaggerated view of the state of Ireland.

I confess that when these two charges of the Lords Chief
Justices of Ireland first appeared and were brought incidentally
before our consideration, I was touched by a very different
feeling, and influenced by a very different emotion from that
which seemed to animate the right honourable gentleman.
Who were these men who delivered these charges ? I sat with
them in this House for many years. They had no resemblance
to each other, except in their talents and their learning, in
their high character and in their candour. One was a Tory of
Tories, and the other was a man of extreme opinions, belonging
to a party professing the same. One was — it is painful to
allude to such a difference, but when you treat of Ireland and
Irish political matters you must do so — one was a Protestant,
and the other was of the Roman faith. And these two men,
rivals in politics, connected with different parties in the State,
professing different religions, resembling each other, if I may
presume to say so, only in that which was excellent and admir-
able, called upon to fulfil the most solemn duty of their offices,
and to represent the condition of their country to their nation
and their Sovereign, though viewing that country in different
districts, adopted the same views and language, and conveyed
the same result to an alarmed, and I might say an appalled
community.

Sir, I know well that the condition of Ireland may act upon
the decision of this House in the conduct of this Bill. I, who
am offering to this Bill no factious opposition, who have given
to it, as I promised, a candid consideration, and who, I trust,
with the modifications which argument and reason may bring
about, will yet be able to give it a cordial support, am most
anxious that honourable gentlemen, on whatever side they sit,
shall not decide upon the fate of Ireland in these most interest-
ing and important relations of its most important classes in a
spirit of panic. Do not let us vote upon this subject as if we
had received threatening letters — as if we expected to meet
Eory of the Hills when we go into the lobby. No, let us decide
upon all those great subjects which will be brought under our

362 SPEECHES OF THE EAKL OF BEACONSFIELD.

consideration in Committee, as becomes members of the House
of Commons, for, depend upon it, if we are induced in a hurry
and with precipitation to agree to such monstrous enactments
as that the Irish people should not have the power, for instance,
of entering into contracts with each other, the time will come
— a more tranquil and a more genial hour as regards Ireland
than the present — when the reproach we shall receive upon the
subject will be made from Ireland itself, and they will say of
the English people, they treated us in our hour of difficulty
as those who neither comprehended justice nor deserved
freedom.

363

WESTMEATH COMMITTEE, Feb. 27, 1871.

[It was perhaps not to be expected that the measures of 1869
and 1870 should operate all at once. Still less, however, was it to
be expected that the necessity for coercive legislation arising im-
mediately afterwards should not eagerly be turned to good account
by a Parliamentary Opposition. Accordingly, when the Marquis of
Hartington l early in the session of 1871 moved ' That a Select Com-
mittee be appointed to inquire into the state of Westmeath and certain
parts adjoining, of Meath and King's County, the nature, extent, and
effect of a certain unlawful combination and confederacy existing
therein, and the best means of suppressing the same,' it was very
natural that Mr. Disraeli should comment on the proposal as he does.
It is needless to say with what delight this speech was listened to by
his own side of the House ; it being generally remarked that he was
regaining his old brilliancy, which, until he spoke on the 24th on the
Black Sea Conference, was thought to be under an eclipse.]

THE noble lord commenced his observations by confessing
the sentiment of dismay with which he rose to make the
proposition with which he has terminated his speech, and I
quite sympathised with the noble lord. I thought it was a
sentiment most natural, and it did him great honour, in my
opinion, to be under its influence at that moment. Consider-
ing how the House of Commons has passed the last two years,
the sacrifices which have been proposed and which have been
submitted to, the unceasing vigilance, the teeming device, the
constant energy, the great exertions that never have been
wanting ; remembering how legislation has been carried on, to
the exclusion of all subjects of imperial interest but those
which related to Ireland ; how England has submitted to the
postponement of measures of great importance, and Scotland
has given up that darling scheme of national education which
1 Became Secretary for Ireland in Dec. 1870.

364 SPEECHES OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD.

we have found so interesting and entertaining this evening ;
and viewing what apparently is the result of two years of con-
stant legislation by a Government elected for the purpose of
introducing an entirely new system in the administration of
Ireland, and which cannot for a moment pretend that it has
not been supported generously by the House in any of the
measures which it deemed necessary to consummate this great
end, I can quite understand, or, at least, I could quite under-
stand until the closing observations of the noble lord, that he
rose under a feeling of some dismay.

But, according to the noble lord, in his concluding sentence,
there is no reason whatever why he should be dismayed ; the
state of Ireland at present, in the instance of this disturbed
county and the adjoining districts, is exactly that which we
ought to have expected. He tells us that religious equality,
that agricultural equity — great ends which have been attained
under his administration — were never for a moment to be
counted on as a means by which a state of society such as he
now introduces to our notice could be ameliorated. If that be
the case, why should the noble lord be dismayed ? The noble
lord should pluck up his courage. If he is to succeed in the
singular proposition he has made to-night, he should have come
forward, not as a daunted, but rather as a triumphant minister.
He should have said, ' It is true that murder is perpetrated with
impunity ; it is true that life is not secure, and that property
has no enjoyment and scarcely any use ; but this is nothing
when in the enjoyment of abstract political justice — and by the
labours of two years we have achieved that for Ireland. Mas-
sacres, incendiarism, and assassinations are things scarcely to
be noticed by a minister, and are rather to be referred to the
inquiry of a committee.'

Now, after the somewhat perplexing address of the Chief
Secretary of the Lord Lieutenant, let me recall the attention
of the House to the position in which honourable members
find themselves to-night, after the notice which was given
forty-eight hours ago. Suddenly the Secretary of the Lord
Lieutenant comes down and announces the appointment of a
secret committee to consider the state of a portion of Ireland,,

WESTMEATH COMMITTEE, FEBRUARY 1871. 365

•and not only to consider its state of combination and con-
federacy against the law, but also to devise means for suppress-
ing the same. That was the way in which the question was
put before us. Now, however, we are told it is not to be a
secret committee ; but have the Government well considered
the effect of making such an announcement to the world, and
expressing an opinion that it was necessary to have a secret
committee to consider the condition of a portion of Ireland ?
Why, the telegraphic cable must have flashed the announce-
ment to America forty-eight hours ago, and what do you think
must have been the effect of it on those treasonable confedera-
cies which are always in action — and are at this moment in
-action, as we know — against the authority of England ? What
must have been the effect of such an announcement ? It
must have produced a conviction in their minds that the
Government found the whole state of society in Ireland under-
mined, and that the authority of the Queen was in imminent
danger. To announce forty-eight hours after this that it is not
the intention of the Government to propose a secret com-
mittee, indicates a tone of levity in dealing with a great ques-
tion which ought not to pass unnoticed.

Surely a minister who proposes a secret committee on the
condition of Ireland, by that proposition alone incurs the
gravest responsibility. Now, to-night we find it is not to be a
secret committee, and then, to our great surprise, we find that
it is also a committee which is not to devise means for remedy-
ing the evils complained of. Then what is the committee to
do? Observe the description of this district of Ireland, where
there are not only these evils, but these spreading evils — observe
the description of it given by the Minister. It is brief and
terse in the extreme. He tells us it is intolerable. He tells
us the state of Ireland is intolerable (No, no !) — that the state
of a great portion of Ireland is intolerable, and therefore will
want inquiry (No, no !). Well, that the state of a county in
Ireland is intolerable. Is it reduced to that ? Is a county in
a state so intolerable that you must come to a senate to ask
for a committee to inquire into it ? Can you not get out of
the difficulty without coming to the House of Commons, and

366 SPEECHES OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD.

asking it to appoint a secret committee to devise means to
govern a county ?

Well, Sir, secrecy is given up and devising means is given
up ; so the question is, * What is this committee to do ? ' Every
impartial member on either side of the House must have felt
the difficulty, and asked himself that question. Why, the
Secretary of the Lord Lieutenant gave us ample explanations as
to the various means by which he might have gained complete
information on all points which the Government required to
guide them in order to meet the evils of this district ; and,
indeed, under the very Act which we passed last year, they
have powers — extraordinary powers ; so that, for instance, if
there is a felony committed in a district, they can summon
witnesses before them and examine them, even although such
witnesses may not be connected with the felony. Why, what
power has a committee of the House of Commons compared
with this power ? I would impress on the House the inexpedi-
ency of assenting to a committee which is to relieve the Gov-
ernment from their responsibility as an executive.

But the noble lord, who says he will never appear in the
sheet of a penitent and holding the taper of remorse, told us
to-night that, whatever the original intentions of the Govern-
ment were, it is not their intention now to ask this committee
to devise any means to suppress the evils of which they com-
plain, and which they describe as intolerable. I would say
myself at once that, so far as I am concerned, I am perfectly
prepared to support the Government in any demand they may
make upon their own responsibility to terminate an evil which
they describe, and I believe justly describe, as intolerable.
There is no need to enter into an antiquated history of the
horrors of Ribandism to induce the House of Commons to come
to this conclusion. We know the evil. We have long heard
of the evil and of the perpetration of these new crimes and
these new horrors; and I was only astonished that in Her
Majesty's gracious Speech from the Throne they were not re-
ferred to with more distinctness. We have recently had from
the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland an announcement with reference
to them which prepared us for the legislation which I suppose

WESTMEATH COMMITTEE, FEBEUARY 1871. 367

\

the Government will come forward and propose; and if the
Government would come forward and propose a remedy, I think
I might venture to answer for every gentleman on this side of
the House that he would give it an unflinching support.

The evil is intolerable and ought to be put down, and we
are prepared to support Her Majesty's Government if, in the
exercise of their constitutional functions, they come forward
and propose a measure instead of asking the House of Commons
to enter upon an inquiry into the matter. The matter is urgent,,
and the business of a committee is necessarily always long.
A committee — to do what ? — to examine officers of the Govern-
ment, to examine magistrates, to call for information from a
miscellaneous multitude of witnesses ? Why, a committee of
inquiry for such purposes is always in existence. It is the
cabinet of the Queen. They have the best information, and
they are selected men, who are supposed to be most competent
to decide on that information ; and on the results of their de-
liberations and on their convictions they ought to introduce a
measure and not move for a committee, when the state of an
Irish county is intolerable. Let the standing orders be sus-
pended if the case is urgent.

The noble lord has made some reference, from that richness
of precedent with which he has been crammed on this occasion,
to what occurred in 1852, and in the midst of the distress of
this regenerating Government of Ireland, supported by a
hundred legions, and elected by an enthusiastic people, in
order to terminate the grievances of that country and secure
its contentment and tranquillity, he must needs dig up our
poor weak Government of 1852, and say, 'There was Mr.
Napier, your Attorney-General, he moved for a committee, and
you were a member of that cabinet.' If I had had a majority
of one hundred behind my back I would not have moved for
that committee. I did the best I could, and I passed a good
Bill by a respectable majority.

But was the situation in which I was placed similar to the
situation of Her Majesty's present ministers ? Look for a
moment to the relations which this Government bear to the
House of Commons with regard to the administration of Ireland.

368 SPEECHES OF THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD.

The right honourable gentleman opposite (Mr. Gladstone) was
-elected for a specific purpose : he was the minister who alone
was capable to cope with these long-enduring and mysterious
evils that had tortured and tormented the civilisation of England.
The right honourable gentleman persuaded the people of Eng-
land that with regard to Irish politics he was in possession of
the philosopher's stone. Well, Sir, he has-been returned to this
House with an immense majority, with the object of securing
the tranquillity and content of Ireland. Has anything been
grudged him ? Time, labour, devotion — whatever has been
demanded has been accorded, whatever has been proposed has
been carried. Under his influence and at his instance we have
legalised confiscation, consecrated sacrilege, condoned high
treason ; we have destroyed churches, we have shaken property
to its foundation, and we have emptied gaols; and now he
cannot govern a county without coming to a Parliamentary
committee ! The right honourable gentleman, after all his
heroic exploits, and at the head of his great majority, is making
Government ridiculous.

If he persists in this absurd suggestion I shall leave it to
fortune to decide what may be its results. If he will bring
forward a measure — an adequate measure — a measure which
will meet the evil, he will be supported. The late Secretary of
the Lord Lieutenant knows very well what is the measure that
will meet the evil, because he plaintively asked the magistrates
at Meath what he should propose to help them out of their
difficulties ; and they met in quarter sessions, passed a resolution,
and told him what was necessary. What the magistrates told
the late Secretary of the Lord Lieutenant will be the ground-
work, the gist, and the pith of the measure which Her Majesty's
Government must bring forward. Under certain circumstances
they will have to suspend the Habeas Corpus Act ; but after
the flashy speeches of the right honourable gentleman opposite
upon that subject, we must have a Parliamentary committee as
•a veil in order that he may save his self-love.

369

UNIVERSITY EDUCATION BILL (IRELAND), March 11,

1873.1

[This Bill was introduced by Mr. Gladstone on February 13. It
was generally believed at the time that Cardinal Manning had induced
Mr. Gladstone to think that the Catholics would accept the Bill ; but
that it was thrown over under peremptory orders from Rome. The
debate on the second reading, the rejection of which was moved by
Mr. Bourke, began on March 3, and after lasting four nights ended
in the defeat of the Government by a majority of 3 — the Ayes being
284, the Noes 287. It had been supported at first because Mr. Glad-
stone was understood to say the Roman Catholic hierarchy would
accept the compromise. A declaration from the Roman Catholic
bishops published on February 28 destroyed all expectation that
the Bill would be a settlement of the question. The exclusion from
the teaching of the new University of theology, ethics, and meta-
physics, completed its discomfiture. Both Roman Catholics and
advanced Liberals combined against it and ensured its rejection. Mr.
Disraeli spoke on the last night of the debate, and his speech, according
to the Times, turned the scale. Mr. Cardwell had said on a previous
night that the Government were ready to make all concessions that were
required in a Liberal direction. Many members, however, did not
happen to hear what fell from Mr. Gladstone afterwards, just as the
House was breaking up. The Prime Minister said that the statement of
the Secretary for War only meant that Government would be perfectly
willing to consider certain questions in Committee. Mr. Disraeli
acted on this rather untimely explanation with practised skill, and
brought it up again on the last night to bear upon those wavering
Liberals who, doubtful from the first of the intentions of Govern-
ment, had been nearly reassured by Mr. Card well's declaration.]

ME. DISKAELI : Sir, I think it convenient occasionally in
a long debate, and especially at the period at which this
has arrived, that the House should take a general view of its

1 This speech is reprinted from Hansard's Debates by permission of Mr.
Hansard.

VOL. II. BE

370 SPEECHES OF THE EAKL OF BEACONSFIELD.

position, and ascertain, and accurately as it can, what is the real
issue before it. Now, Sir, in the course of this discussion
which has occupied much time, but the duration of which ought
not to be measured by the time which has elapsed since it com-
menced, because during that period several evenings have been
devoted to other subjects, many admissions have been made
and many remarks have be